Coalition's job security campaign contradictions

Just what are the Coalition promising to do to increase job security? The answer is very little and there is an important reason why, writes Charlie Donnelly.

"If you want to hang on to your job and have job security you will not be guaranteed that job security under Labor because everything they say and do is pointing the economy in the wrong direction. It is only the Coalition that is going to make the decisions that get the economy back on track." - Joe Hockey

It doesn't surprise me that the Liberal Party is attempting to abolish a price on carbon, lower corporate tax rates and get rid of the mining tax. What does surprise me is the manner in which those policy positions are being justified and communicated to the electorate. Name a Liberal Party policy and you'll find a justification connected to job security.

The Carbon Tax: "...if you vote for the Coalition the carbon tax goes - that is good for households, it is good for your job security."- Tony Abbott.

To be fair, I haven't yet picked up any direct connections between cracking down on "illegal boat arrivals" and "job security". Unless something changes, and soon, the use of this "job security" rhetoric will form part of successful Coalition election strategy.

As a campaign tactic it's effective because it speaks to the experiences and concerns of the vast majority of Australians who are out of the labour market attempting to get in, who are struggling with underemployment and/or insecure forms of employment, or are one of the lucky few in permanent full-time employment but are anxious about losing their position.

For now this rhetoric is working. Recent polling carried out by Qdos Research on behalf of the National Union of Workers highlights just how critical job security is as an issue for Coalition voters in marginal seats. Across the seats of Deakin and Brisbane, 75 per cent of Liberal voters think that casualisation is a problem. Moreover, 41 per cent of Liberal voters in these seats indicated that they would vote for a party that took strong action on secure jobs. A significant segment of Coalition support is dependent on being associated with positively impacting on job security.

This makes an examination of Coalition industrial relations policy important. Just what are the Coalition promising to do to increase job security? The answer is very little and there is an important reason why. The Coalition's industrial relations policy is based on a single, simple belief that increasing corporate profitability leads to more secure jobs. As Joe Hockey put it on the first day of the election campaign, "the only way to have job security is if the business you are working in is profitable".

But there is a clear contradiction in this statement. Today there are many, many highly profitable Australian companies employing people in increasing numbers in insecure jobs. They are employed on casual contracts year after year, on short-term contracts and through casual third party employment.

The NUW represents workers at warehouses for Coles and Woolworths. Last month Woolworths announced a yearly profit of $2.3 billion and Coles $1.5 billion. Yet these two supermarket giants now employ many of their warehouse workers casually through third party labour hire companies. Many must wait for a text message each day telling them if they have work. They have no holiday pay or sick leave and never know how much money they will earn each week. Coles and Woolworths' huge profits have not led to job security for these workers.

It's a situation workers across the country face. Increasingly in Australian offices, on worksites and in government departments the workforce is being casualised. Since the 1980s, Australia's economy has grown and grown, but so has casual employment. A quarter of all Australian workers are now employed casually.

This isn't even factoring in the blooming of a plethora of other insecure working arrangements from labour-hire, third party outsourcing, fixed-term contracts and subcontracting. It's clear that corporate profits and insecure work have risen together. Liberal voters know this. In the polling referred to above, 53 per cent of Liberal voters thought employers could reduce the use of casual jobs and short-term contracts but they are usually more concerned about saving money. For these workers, Coalition policy will not increase their job security. The Coalition cannot help these workers while its policy is based simply on increasing corporate profitability.

Therein lies the contradiction at the centre of the Coalition's popularity - it pledges to deliver outcomes that are pushed farther away by the policy-making means it will employ. This job security rhetoric will turn into a point of instability for the next Coalition government when it fails to deliver the job security millions of casual workers in Australia crave. It will also do very little for the many more Australians who are likely to be pushed into the growing army of insecure workers.

Charlie Donnelly is the national secretary of the National Union of Workers. View his full profile here.

Id:

05 Sep 2013 8:06:03am

It will have its funny side.Rasputin and his Muppets running the huge economy we have.Regrettably they think running Australia is as easy as running a bike shop.By the way, will Abbott do all his overseas trips wearing a yellow visibility jacket?

Blzbob:

John51:

05 Sep 2013 10:33:40am

Oh yea, I love that line I am worried about my job security so I am going to instead vote for the coalition. Wow, now that is a contradiction in terms in just about every possible way you could think of.

Just about every one of the coalition's policies, those that we have seen contradict they very idea of improving job security. Abbott can say he is going to create 2 million jobs, over the next three years, but that is pie in the sky claims. Even if it was over the next 6 years it would still be pie in the sky claims. You would be off on the magical mystery tour and where you may end up could be the total opposite to where you wanted to go.

Plus could you please tell me what sort of jobs, pay and condition are you thinking on. After all the coalition and business look on in envy of the United States with its minimum pay rate of $7.20. Obama is trying to get it up to about $9.60 but he is meeting all sorts of opposition. Is that the sort of job you would like. Oh and don't expect any security with your minimum wage of $7.20.

If you want to see greater job security and pay, as least for your kids support labor's Gonski funding model. Education and good quality education for all is the key to greater job security. Without that investment in education and skills development you can forget about everything else. And if you want that you also want labor's version of the NBN over the third rate coalition version.

When I worked for Coles in the early 90's about 1/4 of workers were casuals but only represented about 10% of hours worked - that is 90% of time worked was secure full time work. Essentially they had their core staff and supplemented this with casuals to allow for fluctations. As noted above, the workforce has been casualised. This means that now the majority of hours worked by Coles employees is not secure full time work. On any particular day or week you do not know what your income will be.

Why is this a problem? Hard to get and pay a mortgage if you do not have a secure income source.

True Blue Ozzie:

04 Sep 2013 10:12:15pm

Along with Abbott's claim that surpluses are in the LNP 's DNA , and so it is with industrial relatations . LNP governments are well known for not supporting the working class, in favor of there business buddies every time.Many will in time seriously regret their decision to vote for Abbott and i have no pity for the fool's who will be burnted from the stroke of their pen.

Mike:

05 Sep 2013 7:53:13am

Here Here (True Blue Ozzie)I have voted Labor all my life even when I was a small business owner for about 20yearsI remember my rootsI'm a working class man & can't believe the stupidity of working class Aussie's voting for the business owners party Liberal Nationals - Tories? - Squires?I'm old enough to have seen it happen several times over & agree ... Sucked in ... if they're stupid enough to vote LNP then they deserve all they getTrouble is they drag us down with them

ron:

05 Sep 2013 1:39:51pm

Mike

Unfortunately over the years Labor has slipped. It is now more closely aligned to business and right wing politics than it was a few decades ago.

The problem is that the majority of people are not willing to take a chance on a smaller un-tested party. For decades it has been only Labor and Liberal, no other party has formed government in its own right.

So we get this too and fro between the two parties. It seems to be more of a case that people don't want to vote for party X rather than wanting to vote for party Y. Many votes are 'time for a change' yet the change is back to the lot that got booted last time.

Hopefully some will vote beyond the big two and we may see some real change in the future.

burke:

Blzbob:

04 Sep 2013 11:08:30pm

Under Abbott we will be subjected to their new industrial relations policy.Workchoices id dead, sos get ready for it's replacement "Choiceworkers" where only the most subservient will manage to keep their jobs.

I have worked casual jobs for 30 years, I'd prefer not to be trapped into serving one master, I prefer to server only the better ones.

ron:

05 Sep 2013 1:44:06pm

Blzbob, Choiceworkers. I think you might have just given Abbott his next slogan.

We all new Workchoices was merely that. You got to choose whether you worked to the bosses ultimatums or joined the unemployment queue. This is the 'right' way of doing business in this country and something that any worker should be very concerned about.

Greg:

05 Sep 2013 12:11:58am

I will be honest here. They both stink when it comes to job security. And I am talking about government departments. I know this is going on in all sectors.

When I left the army after umpteen years of service, I gained employment in a federal government department. This department is quite large and very important. The job was casual, but the employers said that it would no doubt turn full time after an initial period. It didn't. In spite of our teams doing excellent work and breaking previous 'case loads' records, we were given the flick. This was during the last days of the Howard government.

I gained another position not long after at the same Federal department (we have now entered the Rudd/Gillard phase). This time it was a '6 month contract'. I worked that, and was offered another '6 month contract'. I left 3 quarters of the way through this for my next employment debacle, but I keep in touch with others still there, and they are still getting these 'contracts' renewed....

I then gained employment in a front line state government service. A somewhat dangerous occupation at times. Again, casual for '12 months' was the verbal pledge at the time. This casualisation was enacted under the NSW state Labor government.

The O'Farrel Liberal opposition was on the rise. They stated that they didn't like casualisation and would move to get rid of it (sent to us via email). Well, they have gotten rid of quite a few full timers, and many of the casuals in this department...sacked them actually. A number of us casuals still remain (though they did put through another class recently...of casuals haha), along with the rest of the anxious full timers still remaining. The customer base continues to rise of course, but when does that mean anything?

And that is the real problem. There are tiny differences, but both of them are shockers when it comes to doing what they say.

On the one hand we have a union hack talking about how horrid it all is, and yet his party were major starters of casualisation in NSW. Then we have the Liberal lackey, probably set to take the throne, who says exactly the same thing! For my money, neither of them are worth spitting on when it comes to this issue and anyone that believes them needs their heads checked.

the egg:

05 Sep 2013 9:33:06am

My son is in this position. His "contract" runs out in octocber and he has been told he will be competing with "others" in a new "hire" company for a further six months extension. He already lives in a country district of NSW where there is pretty much no work for his skills so Abbotts move to the regions stuff is a load of crap. He currently has a three hour drive to his current "job". How can kids live with any hope for the future I'm damned if I can see. If I was him with almost no vision for a future I'd just give up and before anyone bangs on about moving for work it ain't that easy. He gave up the Defence Force to save his marriage after an NT posting. At least the DF is reasonably safe from Abbotteconomics.My last job, before retirement was in the "private" sector and frankly right now thats the last place I'd want to be employed !!!

ron:

05 Sep 2013 1:53:41pm

The important thing to remember with third party hire companies is their intricate knowledge of the business they are hiring for - NOOOOOOOT!

These companies are only interested in giving a pair of hands at a set rate. Having dealt with them as both a job seeker and an employer, I can assure you that their methods for identifying suitable workers is grossly flawed.

As far as security in the public sector - just look at NSW & Queensland. Since the Libs took over they reduced staff numbers by ten's of thousands, with many remaining staff being placed on one year contracts. If you think Abbott will be any different, think again.

Frank of NQ:

Tristan:

"When the unions are in government employers go defensive which is not good for the economy or jobs."

Frank of NQ,

That's rubbish.

When the Liberals won government in a landslide in 2004 and gained a senate majority, they inflicted Workchoices on the electorate, a policy they completely failed to campaign on during that election.

The Liberals :

1) lowered the minimum safety net to only 5 minimum conditions

2) removed the "no disadvantage" test

3) created "take it or leave it" exploitative AWAs which overrode award and enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) - remember Spotlight's 2c extra an hour AWAs for giving up entitlements such as penalty rates and overtime which were legal under Workchoices.

4) it's "protected by law" entitlements were proven to be a lie

5) unfair dismissal protection was removed for businesses employing 100 employees or less.Howard, and Costello - the founder of the extreme rightwing, freemarket HR Nicholls Society which has Peter "Jobsback" Reith on its board of directors and does not believe in concepts such as award wages, the Harvester judgement or a living wage, both advocated removing unfair dismissal protection for all employees regardless of the size of the business.

oldossi:

Aja:

05 Sep 2013 4:24:53am

The actions of Coles and Woolies started to happen under Howard when unemployment was higher than it is now.

Woolies are notorious for ripping off farmers at the meat sales, giving them a pittance for the meat they produce and screwing our feet to the floor. Just visit any sheep or beef sale in the country and see how Woolies drive the price down on any given day.

As for the part time workers? At least they have a part time job but under the Liberals they will definitely be out of work when the recession hits.

burke:

ron:

05 Sep 2013 7:23:20am

Mass conversion to casual workforce happened from the late 90's. When I went overseas in '98 there was a small percentage employed on individual contracts or under casual employment. When I returned about 5 years later it was rampant. Might want to ask Liberals about this.

Liberals are also against workers being part of a union. How can they say workers can't have a representative body when even large companies with solicitors & human resource teams are often part of large industry bodies. Where's the equity in this?

Liberals may be able to offer more casual jobs. The lie is that they offer more security.

Rusty:

05 Sep 2013 11:08:33am

ron,

Job security is totally dependent on you skills and value to your employer...perhaps look in the mirror to see where the real problem lies...may posters on this article refuse to move, retrain etc and just sit around whining and whinging about the terrible employers and the LNP...you lefties can't force a company to employ people...a healthy economy under the LNP will lead to economic expansion and hence increased employment...simple

ron:

05 Sep 2013 1:03:56pm

Rusty

I agree in part with your opening statement and this should be the main factor but unfortunately there are more reasons than simply your skill set. There is also your flexibility, which for some employers includes how far they can push the worker before the workers back breaks. Life ain't just about how much profit can be made. There is also your ability to take a pay cut when times are tough, but don't expect a hefty bonus when times are good.

The LNP is against workers rights. This was one of the main reasons they were booted out in 2007.

Many 'lefty' workers do retrain and reskill. What many 'lefty' workers are against is being asked to become more 'productive' so that employers can reduce staff costs while increasing profits for the executives and shareholders who make their money of the hard work of the 'lefty' workers, particularly when being more productive includes working harder so that management can sack a proportion of the workforce.

Unions have identified this as a problem and want to curb the trend, which is why the LNP wants to rid the workplace of unions.

chiteira:

05 Sep 2013 1:27:22pm

It isn't just that the work is casual - it is poorly paid casual work, with poor conditions and bosses that have little respect for the casuals they employ.

I used to work casual 25 years ago. It was awesome. I got paid almost twice as much as what I would have in a permanent role. Bosses treated me with respect. I was employed most of the time - there were a few weeks I didn't have work but because my pay was so high compared to full time, it was easy to budget. It was exciting changing jobs every few weeks or months, and I got to build my skills through casual work. If I didn't have the skills for a role, I'd bring a willing attitude and employers would take some responsibility to train me on the job. You were exempt from the office politics coz you were a temp and everything was happy happy happy. Working casual for 18 months allowed me to build a range of skills I wouldn't have got from having a permanent job for 18 months. I used to rave about it coz life was good.

Today casual work is different. The pay is not enough to make up for missing out on the security and benefits of a full time job. The bosses are a whole different class of evil. The work is irregular. Time off between jobs is stressful because there isn't enough money. Bosses expect you to be overqualified for everything, know everything and don't want to take any responsibility for training, so you learn no new skills and gradually become unskilled and undesirable. Then, they don't even have the decency to let you know you are finishing up until an hour before - standard practice these days.

Rusty: as far as learning new skills, the quickest and fastest way to learn is on the job. The notion of "retraining" is nothing but a sales pitch for overpriced courses. Most of my life I have worked alongside people with university degrees doing the same job as me - and guess what - their university degrees haven't made them any more capable than me.

Paul Taylor:

05 Sep 2013 7:49:48am

Din, a little ironic & a little bit rich that Roger Corbett , CEO of Fairfax media, known Liberal Party supporter & on the RBA board.... should in the last days of the federal election campaign...lampoon Kevin Rudd?s leadership when he has presided over mass sackings at Fairfax & as former head of Woolworths along with his opposition giant food retailer Coles has put Australian farmers out of business, along with small business fruit & vegetable, butchers & delicatessens. Then there is the promotion of the shopper dockets which has helped to put many independent fuel retailers out of business. No surprises, he gives a glowing character reference to Tony Abbott as leader in a potential Federal Coalition government; to a Party that professes to claim that it will create 2 million new jobs within a decade( may as well be in the never never) but whose track record on jobs with Coalition state governments & plans for massive job cuts in the public service suggest the opposite.

Australia?s future does not rely on job cuts but rather a far superior Labor NBN, job skilling , training with the best education system & incorporating an uptake in innovation along with the promotion of R&D in a fully digital economy....where the spotlight will be put on our business leaders, their training & capabilities to adapt to change rather than the worker. Households will be $3,800 richer by 2020, not in 10 years time, with more diversified jobs & security according to a recent study by independent economic forecaster Deloitte Access Economics.

Who does the highly respected international economic analyst publication The Economist say would better lead Australia into the future & not the past....Labor not the Coalition. Unlike the Coalition The Economist accepts the fact that we have been going through the greatest global economic recession since the Great Recession & does not counter propaganda BS as fact.

burke:

chiteira:

05 Sep 2013 2:00:26pm

Paul I agree with you, but I think the challenge is getting people to think and evaluate for themselves. They just don't. They chant the mantra of their favourite football team - by which i mean political party - rather than thinking about the issues. The whole notion of being a labor or liberal supporter is bizarre because it isn't a football match - it is a political discourse, and unlike an afl football match, the winner gets to make key decisions that will impact on the whole of Australia for generations to come.

I lament the loss of the NBN, and the progress that would have come with it. I think not only will be poorer economically, we will be starved of the innovation that may have come with it. The greatest innovations we are likely to see in the next six years are new ways to exploit 457 visas.

But if we want change and innovation, we need people to start thinking and talking - beyond the scope of what liberal and labor offer. It is rare these days to hear someone raise a new possibility that isn't a liberal or labor policy - which is sad coz so much more is possible. We are a country of over 20 million people, yet most of us aren't in the conversation.

R.Ambrose Raven:

05 Sep 2013 8:52:38am

Wrong, as usual, in both statement and implication. Also shallow and silly. Lunar cycles have happened under the Howard Government, so by din's standard they caused them.

Wrong in statement, because the Coles/Woolworths duopoly - like the desdtruction of grain regulation - has been a steadily and consistently developing phenomenon, starting well before 2007. Indeed it is a date of no relevance to this issue.

Wrong in implication, because the refusal to break up the Coles/Woolworths duopoly is bipartisan.

Foreign workers (not just s457 visa workers and fee-paying students earning a bit extra) are now often out-competing young Australians for first-time jobs - such as stacking supermarket shelves, retail sales or cleaning - in the big cities. The bipartisan focus on pouring more workers in (as sweatshop labour for business) is itself alone having a big impact.

din's political obsession complicates rather than solves such an issue.

Blzbob:

ron:

05 Sep 2013 1:12:08pm

Blzbob,

Like you I try as much as possible to buy from independents. Unfortunately for some items the price difference is ridiculous, and in my area apart from Col-worths there are not many general stores except the expensive street corner variety.

Apart from having a conscience, the food generally is fresher and tastes better from the independents, and they give you friendly personal service.

Kingly:

kenj:

04 Sep 2013 3:54:53pm

Read the Liberal Party's Workplace Policy document:

"We will also encourage greater compliance and education by providing potential immunity from Fair Work Ombudsman pecuniary penalty prosecutions for a small business employer if it pays or applies the wrong employment conditions, provided the error was not deliberate and the employer had previously sought Fair Work Ombudsman advice and help on the same issue. "

So here's what thousands of employers will now do. Call the Fair Work Ombudsman asking about pay details and keep a clear record of that call time and date. Underpay your workers -- in their weekly wages, annual leave, penalty loadings or termination payments -- and hey presto! You can never suffer criminal sanctions or financial penalties! The worst that can happen is you'll have to pay the correct payments. You can blame any errors on the computer, your temporary payroll staff, a misreading of the award -- anything.

It is a virtual blueprint for employer fraud, a get of jail card for every employer who's been tempted to cheat their employees.

spud:

04 Sep 2013 5:27:26pm

Irrespective of the veracity or otherwise of your claims, the basis for them in a general sense are so pass? as to be ridiculous in the 21st century. No doubt some such C19th attitude employers do exist, but they won't for long; that is outside of the unions themselves!!! Actually, unions suggesting that employers are the problem so far as ethical behaviour is concerned is just a bit of a joke.

the yank:

04 Sep 2013 6:20:29pm

The saddest joke is electing a government which is declaring war on its own people.

The real answer to industrial relations is not to declare workers as the enemy but to formulate an approach that brings all sides together. A thought that will never occur to Abbott or his rusted on supporters.

EVAN:

the truth:

04 Sep 2013 7:39:57pm

The Campbell Newman Liberal Government forced a Family man to take a $10 000 pay cut or he was sacked. There are thousands of other examples.

Five others committed suicide during his reckless sackings of over 12 000 employees. They were so badly betrayed they had to place Security Guards on the doors to the roof levels of all Government buildings.

It is the Liberal way. If a Liberal Premier can do that imagine the carnage that will follow from 'Recession Tony' who has stated he relished Work Choices.

burke:

chiteira:

05 Sep 2013 2:28:00pm

Recessions are always good for the rich. Regular people can't pay their mortgages, those with money swoop in for a bargain that quickly increases in value once the economy is restored. Workers have no rights, as all they can do is take whatever work they can get - even if it is cash in hand below minimum wage and poor conditions.

JohnnoH:

04 Sep 2013 8:14:46pm

Which government has declared war on its own people? I can remember a certain premier in NSW , who thought it would be a good idea to run protesters down in favour of an American. Which side of politics was he from again?

burke:

llanfair:

04 Sep 2013 6:44:40pm

@Yank, from previous posts I understand you work for Local Government. If not I apologise, but if so, can I suggest you recommend to your Council that Rates are optional for the next 12 months. Part of your job will be to convince Rate Payers that the services you offer are worth the cost. If you cannot convince them, you (like many business owners who cannot sell their product) will not get paid.

If you worked for Local Government and are retired, the same should apply to your pension. My local Council has to allocate $10 million this year to a defined benefit superannuation scheme that provides benefits that 99% of the electorate will never receive.

The saddest joke is that those who spend the common wealth believe they are so morally superior to those that create it.

I have had a range of clients at Local, State and Federal Government levels and they live in a dream world. Maybe we close down all levels of Government for 12 months and only re-hire those Public Servants that the People actually miss.

spud:

04 Sep 2013 7:02:00pm

Yes it was a very sad day when we did that yank.

But if you think that governments can in some magical way legislate to regulate how people think and interact, then perhaps you had better get out into the real world. We aren't sovietised yet, and long may it stay that way.

kenj:

04 Sep 2013 6:42:31pm

To be fair, Spud, the proposed new Liberal law matches legislation elsewhere. For instance, if you ring up the RTA and ask them what's required for a roadworthy certificate you can't later be booked for driving your car with bald tyres. The reason is that you have demonstrated your 'good faith' by ringing the RTA first and your bald tyres are just an inadvertent oversight that you won't get fined for.

DMalone:

04 Sep 2013 10:03:24pm

Spud, I'm not sure where you live, but I know one employer in the ESL industry who has underpaid workers for years and had to repay back wages due to union intervention. ( terrible unions making him pay award wages.)

The owner is still doing it to his current employees under a different business name but these current employees are not union members so nothing is done.

There are many businesses doing the same thing. Welcome to 21st century Sydney.

spud:

05 Sep 2013 10:59:25am

I think DM that your post says it all. Yes there are some bad employers out there who exploit their workers; the same as there are bad workers who exploit their bosses. But look what happens to the bad boss businesses; as you note, they go bust.

burke:

Tristan:

It's like the Liberals' uncapped, semi-skilled, widely rorted, exploitative 457 visa system which they introduced in 1996 (17 years ago) to allegedly overcome skills shortages.

The Liberals completely failed to campaign on 457 visas during the 1996 election.

The Liberals introduced 457s with no market wage, not even a minimum wage, no labour market testing and no obligation on employers or employment agencies to advertise jobs locally, or provide any training.

Abbott and the Liberals strongly opposed and voted against Labor's amendments that came into effect from 1 Jul 2013 that introduced labour market testing, a training levy, and compulsory advertising.

Miowarra:

04 Sep 2013 4:00:34pm

The Liberal Party is, and always has been, the Parliamentary tool of business, big and small.

It is in the interests of business to have a fearful, insecure workforce so that they can increase demands for output or reduce wages or benefits on a workforce that is too insecure to protest, organise or dispute management demands.

Therefore, the Liberal Party is happy to maintain or increase job insecurity.Their masters require it of them as the price for their support.

The only remedy for the workers is to join a Union. Only collective action by a Union has the power to resist the depredations and abuse of workers by employers.

OUB :

04 Sep 2013 6:43:34pm

Businesses don't vote Mio, only people. Roughly 50% of voters (a bit more at the moment) think the Coalition do a better job of managing the economy in a way that is to their benefit. I gather the other 50% or so are just a bit confused.

burke:

RoxyR:

04 Sep 2013 10:41:26pm

Miowarra,

"It is in the interests of business to have a fearful, insecure workforce so that they can increase demands for output or reduce wages or benefits on a workforce that is too insecure to protest, organise or dispute management demands."

Rubbish.

The best way to make a profit is to have a stable workforce that is happy with where they work and the job they do. Staff turnover is a huge impost on business.

But then looking at your sign off at the end I see you have a vested interest in stirring up animosity between workers and management, got to try to get those falling union numbers up somehow.

Tristan:

05 Sep 2013 9:13:36am

"The best way to make a profit is to have a stable workforce that is happy with where they work and the job they do. Staff turnover is a huge impost on business."

Yes it is RoxyR,

In fact the ACTU's 2013 campaign focused on insecure employment, sham independent contracting arrangements, oxymoronic long term casuals and full time temps on rolling contracts who work like full time staff with none of the permanent benefits.

And we know from the Liberals' uncapped, semi-skilled 457 visas and Workchoices what JohnM means by "flexibility".

"Revealed: how AWAs strip work rights" (SMH 17 Apr 2007)

"SECRET figures reveal that 45 per cent of Australian Workplace Agreements have stripped away all of the award conditions that the Federal Government promised would be "protected by law" under WorkChoices."

"The figures, which the Government refuses to release, also show a third of the individual employment contracts lodged in the first six months of WorkChoices provided no wage rises during the life of the agreements."

"The Government has refused to publish the information after preliminary figures made public last May from a smaller sample of 250 agreements presented an unflattering picture of the impact of WorkChoices on employees."

Universal Soldier 11:

spud:

04 Sep 2013 4:05:38pm

Spoken like a true union leader who apparently believes in magic puddings and killing golden gooses.

As an employer and business owner, I can tell you that the maths is simple. I can only employ people if my business has enough money left over after paying all of its costs to be able to afford to do so. All taxes reduce the amount of money I have left over to so employ people. So do many other circumstances; such as the GFC, and anything that reduces my tax burden increases the chances that other impacts like the GFC might be sufficiently offset that I can keep employees on. Under this government, that hasn't happened; the tax burden has gone the other way; and people have lost their jobs.

Now I don't know what about that is so difficult to understand, but unless Donnelly and his union mates wake up to that, then their own jobs will be threatened by a lack of members.

spud:

04 Sep 2013 7:08:39pm

Assuming you do work M, I am sorry you work in such a situation where your boss does exploit you to such an extent. Perhaps you would like to come and work for me at my average salary for the last six years? Only you had better not let the unions or FWA know that, or I will be in trouble for employing you at below award wages.

And actually, you could equally argue that all my employees are employed by virtue of MY investment and MY IP.

spud:

05 Sep 2013 11:06:05am

That is exceedingly unfair of you Johnno, and a completely false representation of my point, which was that my pay over the last five or six years is less than that of my employees; a decision I have taken in order to keep those employees on. Obviously I can't do it forever, which is why I want a change in government on Saturday.

Do you have the integrity to withdraw the slur that I belong in some "slimey organisation"? It would be nice.

frangipani:

04 Sep 2013 7:10:05pm

@Miowarra - no, all his profits aren't generated by the sweat of his employees. They're generated to some great extent by his going into debt to create a workplace for them to produce whatever it is they're producing; by his taking risks with his and his family's future; and probably, if he's anything like my relative who's a small businessman, by his working twice the hours that any of his employees do and taking as a salary whatever the business generates - and that might not be much.

If anyone thinks that small businesses are about bosses exploiting labour for profit, let them go into small business, and learn how very hard it is, how many hours you have to work, and how constrained you are by regulations, local, state and federal.

tomtoot:

04 Sep 2013 10:37:27pm

Been there, done that, - But! what are you saying frangipani that is meaningful - what are you saying that contradicts the article, what are you saying that means that the ALP is against small business?

Jerrythemouse:

Why is profit such a dirty word in Australia. The fact Spud has put up his hard earned capital and taken a risk seems to be sadly missed by the thinking of people like yourself.

Employing a person In Australia is risky. I had an employee steal from me. I dismissed that person and was told by Fairwork to re-employ them. I reasoned that trust was lost and the employee had admitted to the theft but still had to pay them compensation.

My response. I closed my business down, retrenched all 120 of my terrific employees who all had families and moved my business to another country.

Business cannot operate under these conditions and unions and by extension Labour have only themselves and their 20th century mindset to blame.

BB:

04 Sep 2013 9:16:07pm

And as the owner who takes all the risk and stress and maybe took out the huge loan to originally get the business started and have to sometimes deal with very unhelpful staff maybe he does deserve a good profit.and maybe some of that profit gets poored back into the business to make it a better place to work in. Or maybe he does not make a good profit each year? Who knows but not every employer is an oga. Until you have had a go at small business don't just jump on the bandwagon like a union leech !And who said that the employer does not sweat and make the effort too.

Peter:

05 Sep 2013 12:03:19am

Anyone who has tried to establish a small business of their own will soon tell you that you work more hours and earn less money than a wage earner. Those who do get through it and succeed? Apparently it's all because of the effort of someone that they have given a job? Nice one.

Kevgoolawah:

04 Sep 2013 6:21:11pm

Spud, as a worker, not an owner, I am always confronted by the bosses unions opinion that what is good for business is always good for all. Recently there was a corruption case regarding union officials, it made headlines for months, still does. When a boss is proven to be corrupt he simply disapears into the morass of others who have fiddled the books or just gone bust and not paid out their sub-contractors, only to re-emerge later with a new business name and ABN. Happens all the time and hardly makes the news. The thing that makes Australia great is that we have a high standard of living based on what our average worker is paid. Our average is falling in relation to our top few earners, who by the way have no trouble in getting a pay rise. This gap from the over paid down to the under worked and hardly paid is getting bigger and it seems that the bigger the gap the more it is celebrated by the top end of town. Anyone who is not in the top 15% of earners should NOT be voting Liberal at this or any election.

spud:

04 Sep 2013 7:13:04pm

I am definitely not in the top 15%, and I would be mad to vote for anyone else. In my view, anyone with kids they didn't hate would be mad to vote for more of this mob; even their acolytes at the ABC acknowledge they are utterly chaotic. Our kids will be paying back their debt for years as it is; we don't want their kids paying for it as well.

spud:

05 Sep 2013 11:10:36am

When I set up my business tom, I invested my life savings in it in the hope (and belief) of being able to build a better life for my kids, your kids and the world, so please don't presume to spout such tripe at me.

Rusty:

Circular:

05 Sep 2013 7:14:13am

That's the problem with small business people. They think the government exists solely for their profitability. They also make the small minded mistake of assuming that running a country is the same as running the local corner store. Liberals say this all the time - 'if I ran my business like this government I'd be broke'. Last time I looked not many businesses in Australia were remotely close to being a 'democracy'.

I say thank god every few years we get a Labor government to correct the employment nexus that Liberals, in their chase to secure small business votes, create for us. It will be no different next time. And while we're at it, I find it amazing that small business thinks Australia's economy is kaput. Have you compared the rest of the first world to our economic stability? That is what creates job security, not pandering to a small minded small business cohort that has a disjointed impression of the way a nation should be run!

Ric:

Interesting you should consider our current political state a democracy - let's see, last election labor won office with gillard as the leader - our prime minister - that's the democratic process.

Come this election our pm is rudd!!! - tell me what democratic process put him in charge - it wasn't the australian people, it was his own party who are more interested in their own survival than democracy.

spud:

05 Sep 2013 11:15:33am

No circular, on the contrary, I don't expect the government to support me in any way. What I do object to is that government and the public sector have both constantly got in the way of my business ever since day 1.

And why shouldn't government be subject to the same stringencies of honesty that business is? After all, we are shareholders in the government; why is it that I will be put in jail if I lie to my shareholders or provide misleading or false statements to ASIC, but government (and particularly this one) serially lies to us as shareholders in Australia with absolute impunity?

Circular:

05 Sep 2013 11:54:09am

Sorry Spud, you should have left well enough alone. Just the terminology indicates you misunderstand the difference between a democracy and a individualistic organisation solely there for profit. I, and neither are you though you don't realise it, are citizens NOT shareholders.

Regards gov't getting in your way, does that mean being constrained by statutory laws which democratic institutions like, um government, deliver. Do you think business should be allowed to do whatever it pleases as if it were outside of the influence of societal norms?

Jas:

04 Sep 2013 6:26:15pm

Try and run the same business without any employees. It appears, like too many Australian businesses, you only see employees as a cost, and not as an instrument to make profit. Far too many businesses are run and/or managed by people lacking the managerial skills to make use of their best asset, the employees. They constantly react negatively to changing circumstance, and start thinking that the only way to succeed is to reduce costs, which usually means reducing staff numbers. Lazy, lazy thinking. If they understood their employees strengths and weaknesses then they would be far more dynamic when business conditions change. Unfortunately this requires hard work, diligence, imagination and foresight. Too many business people are weighed down by anti-union sentiment and a blame culture which shields them from their own shortcomings.

spud:

04 Sep 2013 7:18:44pm

Rubbish Jas. They (our employees) are (mostly) an asset, which is why I do bend over backwards to keep (most of) them. The problem is that those who aren't an asset can't be got rid of, and the good ones suffer as much as I do.

If you think that businesses don't recognise that their workers are their greatest asset in any field, then I suggest you start a business in that field, because you certainly won't lose.

Jas:

04 Sep 2013 8:45:39pm

When you employ someone, how many times do you interview them, and how thorough and probing are the interviews. If you are only doing 2 interviews, you're lazy. Absolute minimum should be 3 to make sure the person wants the job and has the attributes you are after. A big retail chain in the US has a 7 stage interview process. They have fewer employees, pay them more have a much higher staff retention rate than their competitors, happier clients and a much lower wage bill to boot. Too much emphasis on unfair dismissal laws rather than 'top grading' the interviewees. Again, management is too lazy in the first instance, then too unwilling to accept the consequence that they weren't thorough enough before employing someone. Bad management wants to rely on crappy IR laws because then they don't have to blame themselves when an employee doesn't make the grade. These potential employees should be weeded out at the interview process.

spud:

05 Sep 2013 11:26:10am

Great in theory Jas, but practically just not feasible for many businesses. I have conducted many interviews over many years Jas, and now generally get it right, but not always. What I have learned to my cost for example is that the worst employees; the ones who can absolutely destroy a workplace and their co-workers because of their own desire to advance themselves, are exceedingly clever in covering their backsides and making it next to impossible for them to be removed. They end up forcing out the good workers so that they can get their jobs. Fortunately, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and it is disastrous.

The Future:

05 Sep 2013 1:36:04am

I won't take sides on the issue of employers vs unions, but I will take issue with your claim that poor performing employees can't be dismissed.

The three strikes policy is pretty to simple to implement and use. I have never had a problem dismissing an underperforming worker in this way and (despite a few attempts) have never been found in breach of my obligations as an employer.

With regard to your 'good' workers suffering as much as you are, the difference is that these employees are doing their jobs well, if you don't dismiss the underperforming workers using the tools at your disposal, then you aren't!

spud:

05 Sep 2013 11:40:48am

Having once employed and mentored a powerpath who proceeded to destroy my workplace bit by bit, and who I was never even able to get on one strike, I can attest that in cases like that, it is far easier said than done. It is not as if someone who spreads rumours and scuttlebutt to undermine work colleagues can be easily tied down; they simply lie to your face and effectively dare any of their colleagues to stand up to them. It doesn't happen; they are as nice as pie to everyone on the surface, so that no one is willing to go on the record against them because they are such nice guys, and they use that to their advantage. In private, they whiteant and destroy their targets one by one. They are real slimes, and very dangerous. I sure hope you never have to deal with one; because there is a very real risk, even likelihood, it will be you who is destroyed, and not them. FWA rules only help them in that aim.

Miowarra:

The Reg:

04 Sep 2013 8:18:26pm

Well done Spud...

Anyone who employs people in small business these days is not only very brave, but very 'at risk'!

I hope your business prospers so that you you can continue to employ, and also, so that you can suitably reward yourself and your family for all your hard work and the risk taken by you and your family.

tomtoot:

04 Sep 2013 10:32:16pm

Well spud at least you recognise that the GFC was an issue - I believe it still is - that's why I will vote ALP - we survived it thus far - ALP will keep it that way - the LNP, no chance?The very last thing this country needs is austerity measures

spud:

05 Sep 2013 11:47:54am

The GFC did affect some businesses rather badly, mine included, but fortunately for Aust, they/we are in the minority. After all, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Aust mainly trades with Asia, and the Asian meltdown had a much greater impact than the GFC; successfully negotiated by Costello. The GFC was not successfully negotiated by Swan; we now have a debt mountain.

And if you think that the last thing we need is austerity, then you will authorise the government to go on borrowing, which means that it will be your kids who have to pay for it. That is something I don't wish on either my kids or grandkids; why do you?

tonyM:

There is still some crazy mentality out there that it is ?them versus us? yet we are in the same melting pot needing to move with the times.

The Qantas fiasco of unions ?doing them slowly? exemplifies this.

Unions can be good but sometimes they can be so myopic that is beyond description. Now they complain about job security and casualisation of the work force. But no one ever asks why this came about.

It is the very unions now complaining that imposed such extreme conditions that it became profitable and desirable to employ casuals or subcontractors or wanting contracts. It got rid of headaches with union and inefficiency far quicker and more permanently than opiates.

A study of the German system would help. Mind you there has been a lot of improvement compared to the bad old days.

At one stage Oz went through a pandemic of sicknesses created by unions ? RSI. Nowhere else in the world did RSI come near our records. A union rep would come into your factory and a host of people suddenly developed RSI. I do not exaggerate. It was rife.

This Govt's attack on business with the likes of carbon taxes and class warfare rhetoric has done more damage than at any period since Whitlam. People may disagree but the efforts of Hawke/Keating to open up the economy were essential in the long run even though they hit business with tariff reductions.

In answer to a suggestion about voting Labor if not within the top 15% of earners I am left asking a Q about this Govt:

How could it blow the best trade period ever with fantastic terms of trade and turn it into the worst ever deficits, biggest borrowings and now higher unemployment than at the depths of the great financial crisis?

Tristan:

05 Sep 2013 9:27:33am

"There is still some crazy mentality out there that it is ?them versus us?"

Of course there is, TonyM.

Abbott has declared in 2013 he is out to destroy the (employee) unions.

How can workers (many who are non-unionists) trust employers and the Coalition after what you've done to us with uncapped, semi-skilled 457 visas which were and are used by many to undercut local wages and conditions not to meet genuine skills shortages (you've had 17 years since 1996 to train) and exploitative AWAs under Workchoices.

tonyM:

05 Sep 2013 10:13:41am

Tristan:

I'm old enough to recall the TV directive to go into the corner and pull yourself together (Mavis Bramston).

Accept that Abbott will be PM.

Where is Abbott out to destroy unions? He wants to curb some obvious excesses. Productivity improvements may mean little short term but long term they mean everything to improved living standards. Don't underestimate the cost of building overruns on pricing for example.

Quite frankly Abbott strikes me as a very fair, decent person. We have found out he was against the provisions of Work Choices which were repugnant to most of us. That the other Libs did not see it is a mystery.

He has obvious respect from his team. Libs just could not show this rock solid stability if his colleagues did not genuinely respect him. He obviously holds great sway and I am comfortable with his approach. I am comfortable he will listen.

On training just bear in mind Labor has been in for six years. There was ample time to improve apprenticeships. Abbott has added to that.

The 457 visa issues are a furfie. It is far better to get on with a development in a time frame than to sit and wait for the opportunity to pass. It is the fastest way to get skills when you don't have them OR when people don't want to go to those locations. The latter is actually quite an impediment.

As long as 457's are monitored to ensure legitimacy they are very beneficial.

Time will tell but we will at least have some peace in our Govt. It will be good for Labor too as it will hopefully rid itself of its toxic destabilisation. We can't prosper with a weak opposition. We can't prosper with one party always in Govt.

Mike:

04 Sep 2013 4:06:58pm

Conservative believes that what's good for the employer is therefore good for the employee. It is inconceivable to a conservative that employer and employee might have different needs. And when they talk about "greater flexibility" in the workplace they mean greater flexibility for the employer, not the employee.

spud:

04 Sep 2013 5:33:13pm

As an employer, I can tell you that is total hogwash. I have on repeated occasions bent over backwards to keep good employees when they wanted to change their working conditions to suit their own needs. If the unions knew about what we agreed to do to that end, they would have tried to have us shut down.

Perhaps if you stopped hating your employer, he or she might be willing to compromise themselves for your needs too.

OUB :

04 Sep 2013 6:48:53pm

A lot of employees took advantage of the flexibility provided by the Workchoices regime. That flexibility is now greatly reduced and people have lost jobs because of it. Not just schoolkids but also people who have had to squeeze work in around their domestic situations. Never mind that, Labor's sponsors had to be rewarded, for their lies and money.

JohnnoH:

04 Sep 2013 8:29:12pm

No WorkChoices was all lies, no worker was better off, then there were the secrecy clauses. You will not divulge what you signed up under penalty of prosecution. That is what tories are all about, secrecy and shady practices, that is what have always been about. They can't and won't let truth see the light of day. Another example, the WMD in Iraq where the intelligence services said there were none and Howard said that there were. Howard had people sacked for disagreeing with him, because he wanted to be part of George Dubya's illegal invasion of Iraq.

Tristan:

"A lot of employees took advantage of the flexibility provided by the Workchoices regime."

OUB,

Oh you mean the removal of the "no disadvantage" test, the reduction in the safety net to only 5 minimum conditions and this kind of "flexibility"?

"Revealed: how AWAs strip work rights" (The Age 17 Apr 2007)

"SECRET figures reveal that 45 per cent of Australian workplace agreements have stripped away all of the award conditions that the Federal Government promised would be "protected by law" under Work Choices."

"Conditions were stripped from the vast majority of the agreements examined, and these included shift loadings (removed in 76 per cent of the agreements), annual leave loading (59 per cent), incentive payments and bonuses (70 per cent), and declared public holidays (22.5 per cent)."

azalon:

i know there are many of you out there that wouldnt change your mind regardless of how immaterial the LNP 'policies' became.

for everyone else leaning LNP, do your democracy a favour and find out just how much their stated policy aligns with your most important values.

the overwhelming suggestion, as supported by votecompass, is that you are about to vote for a party that has a far more strenuous connection with your values than you assume, particularly if these values centre on sustainability, equality, and long term economic viability.

tomtoot:

04 Sep 2013 11:04:52pm

Vote compass proves otherwise to me - I only hope the ALP gain office for the sake of Australia and me and my children and grandchildren.I want better health care I want better NDIDI want NBNI want Australia to be the bestI wil vote ALPI want the best

Fully indexed payment of at least 75% of their expected earnings for all War Veterans who can no longer work due to their Service.

Free Travel on all public transport for the above.

Wireless Internet not NBN - because Gen. Y and beyond won't be using it in the home!

NDIS - Which the coalition will implement.

Less Public Servants and Government Bureaucracies and more 'productive' workers....say, to commence work on infrastructure to provide cleaner energy.

Genuine Refugees to go through properly Organised Refugee processing centres - given temporary residence visa's if needed and then, when the situation allows, for them to be repatriated back to their home countries, so that their own country can improve itself.

Workers and Employers to work together to improve further opportunities for more workers futures.

All government policies to be fully costed and budgets 'balanced' at the end of each year....if we can't do that then we need to lower our sights a little.

kenj:

04 Sep 2013 4:15:50pm

Over 60% of all new UK employment contracts are 'zero hours' which means that you work only when your employer needs you, 2 hours here, 4 hours there. Great for the corporate bottom line but manifestly inadequate and nasty if you are trying to pay your rent. These contracts have been growing at 50% per year so they look to be the future. So when you are employed on one of these contracts, do you report on safety issues at work? Discrimination against a colleague because she has to care for a sick family member? Of course not. Otherwise you find your roster cut down very quickly to zero hours. And since you have not technically been dismissed you have no unfair dismissal claim.

Does anyone think the Liberal Party leadership and their business backers have not noticed this? Or that, under the guise of 'meeting the flexibility needs of workers' they won't bring this in here? 'World's best practice" they'll call it.

D from Perth:

04 Sep 2013 5:40:56pm

Quite agree Kenj, just seen your letter after I put my comment up. Philip Adams had a discussion on this on LNL last night but I felt that the interviewee didn't really spell it out very clearly. You have done a better job here. I'm glad I am retired, I don't think I like the Brave New World that is evolving.

kenj:

05 Sep 2013 9:40:39am

There's no 'mmmm' about any of this. Having a job in a Western country has traditionally been associated with a range of benefits besides hourly rate of pay -- sick leave, annual leave, public holiday leave, overtime penalty rates. In the 1980s and 90s Australian workers traded off pay increases for superannuation payments. In the US employers have paid health insurance premiums. It would be a windfall for employers to be able to forgo all of these and simply pay a flat hourly rate for a small number of critical hours or production but this ignores other social realities. Employees are working to earn money to live at a civilized standard, to pay rent, feed and clothe their families etc. They can't afford to spend half their week working for an employer for peanuts because their own lives fall apart. We work for a reason. If businesses don't earn enough money to pay for all the items I've mentioned then they are not engaged in business as society has known it. They simply like the idea of having poverty stricken personal servants at their beck and call. 19th century England with its threadbare domestic servants and cheap factory fodder is not what a modern, civilized society should be endorsing.

Waterloo Sunset. 2014:

05 Sep 2013 11:55:05am

Well we have some common ground there. However in this driven interconnected world, jobs are being sent over seas. Every time I call a large business I get a consultant in Indai or the Philippines. Well is that good or bad?

We are lifting them out of poverty, but at the same time breeding our children that will have to adapt to the new work ethic.

Everything is made in China, obviously, because of cheap labour. (until Burma and Bhutan, are enslaved.)

Society as we know it, has changed. Yes from Dickensian times through the industrial times, to IT.

It's offshore now where the problems are, that's why I believe in a population cap...And of course that's why we're getting the boats. They want what we have created.

Huonian:

Geez, Charlie, the situation you describe at Coles and Woollies has existed under 6 years of Labor government. Yet your article is anti-Liberal.

Ever wondered why so few take union leaders seriously and why union membership is so pathetically low these days?

If you were dinkum about the workers, yes you would be commenting on Liberal policies. But you'd also be sheeting home the responsibility for the current state of affairs to the government - which happens to be your Labor mob at the moment.

And while you cite the profits of the two supermarket giants, you overlook the reality that small business, which is the major employer, can only offer any jobs, let alone job security, if they are making money.

orangefox:

04 Sep 2013 4:23:49pm

If you want to boost your income you need to do two things,; have a friend that can employ you on high wages and have a couple of kids. Here's how it works;The Abbott Paid Parental Leave Scheme is a payment of up to $75,000 plus super EACH time a women has a child and takes leave.Small business owners employ their soon to be pregnant wife, relatives or freinds on a high salary (perhaps managing director on $150k) then cash in. And they can do this for every child they have.For three children that is $225,000!That means 3 children will cost the tax payer $225,000 plus super!Besides full time, part time and casual workers, it will also be available to seasonal, contract, and self employed workers who have worked at least 330 hours a year (one day a week).The likelyhood of this scheme being rorted is HUGE!80% of women have a salery less than $62,400 a year and the average salary of women who work full time is $65,000 (much less for those that work part time or casual).This scheme is atrocious and unfair and is simply a bribe for those that can take advantage of it.Wow, what a rort the Libs are setting up.And it won't be big business paying for this as they have been compensated with a 1.5% tax cut.That means the government will have to find $5 billion from general tax revenue.They will have to cut services or raise taxes.Based on 8.2 million households that equates to $610 per household per year.Wonder what other crazy schemes they have cooking?

the truth:

JohnnoH:

04 Sep 2013 8:34:31pm

Dear the truth, stop quoting facts, tories hate that. We all know that Abbott has offered to buy the Indonesian fishing fleet. So he buys all these old boats, brings them back here for a big bonfire (an expensive one, taxpayer funded of course) which adds to the $112B of unfunded promises he has already made. Then on top of that all this money given to Indonesians to build new and better boats. What a "policy"!

tomtoot:

04 Sep 2013 11:19:00pm

Hi CC: Scrapping the carbon tax and still paying a subsidy is - what?The LNP PPL policy - is what?The configuration of a 15000 + volunteers green army to plant trees, (when bush fires due to global warming consume far more than this army could ever plant) - is what?To buy leaky boats from Indonesian fishermen to thwart people smugglers - is what?Dear CC: Think again?Think of the best for Australia and us all

orangefox:

05 Sep 2013 2:04:18pm

The cost of this scheme is expensive when based on people not cheating but the cost be huge when people realise they can game the system. Already it has been reported that couples are holding of having children until after this policy is brought in.Don't think people won't use a loophole. Happens all the time.Howards' rebate for LPG conversions (which was a good idea in principle) was rorted a lot. I talked to many mechnics and they told me there were a lot of dishonest installers who were signing off that a car had been converted when in fact it had already had a gas system on it. The car had been out of rego for a while. Then some even put the same car through multiple times but reregistered in a different name each time after being deregistered. That is one reason Labor wound the scheme back progesively from a $3000 subsidy to $1200 and closed the loopholes.We only need to look at all the tax minimisation schemes both questionable and illegal to see that Abbotts' PPL scheme will be misused. But I believe they know it will happen and by offering this lucrative scheme to small business they get a lot of support from them.Remember the Libs see every small business as salesperson for their party.

Plenty for everyone:

04 Sep 2013 7:13:14pm

All pensioners got a big pay rise, especially the single pensioners as soon as the Labor government got in. Awards were simplified from thousands down to just a few hundred. Instead of paying banks large sums of money to get us through the Global Financial Crisis that affected all countries that we traded with (yes, even China had a stimulus plan) the ordinary people got that money instead, a much better outcome than giving it to the big end of town who would of just taken it offshore to some taxfree haven. At least we spent here in our shops, helping out the 15% of the population who work in retail even if it went on products made overseas.Small businesses got better tax breaks, which Abbott now wants to take away despite being the 'small business party' thus allowing them to keep employing workers.There's a lot more but I'm too busy too list them for a lazy person who couldn't be bothered to remember the last 6 years of their lives.

mortan:

04 Sep 2013 8:43:32pm

Your talking about one off pensioner payments and what awards simplified there are only 18% percent of workers in unions what about the others. We would have got through the GFC without one dollar of government money much that as reported was wasted.

And small business did not get better tax breaks they were hit with more tax recording and reporting costs and the cost of the carbon tax not to mention the high dollar.

Serenity:

04 Sep 2013 9:12:32pm

Well stated PlentyI spent that allowance on Australian products in the local area in regional Queensland.Unfortunately, I find myself living in the second most right-wing electorate in Australia.I wonder how many of them remember how Rudd kept the economy going with the stimulus package that has worked. Unlike the majority of other countries who went for austerity measures and put their economies into recession.This is what Abbott will do to us.

Ric:

05 Sep 2013 10:19:43am

Rudd came into power with the economy in surplus and proceeded to tell us it was the labor government that steered us through the gfc - come on think!!! - all he did was throw what was saved away by handing it out to the masses in the hope our spending would stimulate the economy - what a joke - like giving an athlete a cup of coffee during during a marathon - short lived.

Much of "our" money ended up overseas by people making consumer purchases or they simply paid of their credit cards.

If he was so wonderful in that term, then why did his own party through him out ????

maus:

05 Sep 2013 12:32:43am

Unfortunate for you Plenty for everyone, and may I say what an apt name for a Labor supporter (till someone has to pay the bills of course) a lot of voters do remember the last 6 years and they are not happy.

The Future:

JohnnoH:

04 Sep 2013 8:40:53pm

Well Morton, to start with, the tax free threshold was raised to $18,000. Pensioners are far better off now than what they we under Howard and this Labor government is a lower taxing government overall than the Howard government was. Plus improved infrastructure benefits not only working families but all Australians, lower interest rates benefit working families. Plus the creation of 900,000 jobs must benefit working families.

OntheRun:

CHarlie Donnelly, please don't join the ALP. I know that is what you are aiming for with an article such as this but the ALP needs less union influence not more.

The Liberals are going on about jobs because so much was spent for so little long term benefit. Job security is increasingly going down along with home ownership.

The ALP (which are strangely not mentioned by you) don't have any real plans. If they did, why weren't they implemented.

As for not seeing a correlation with asylum seekers and jobs, how much does it cost to process those who arrive? Could this money be spent elsewhere? Will more people require more jobs?

The ALP have "created" (via business I guess) close to a million jobs yet unemployment has risen due to extra people. The unskilled migrants compete and lower the private business wages by adding competition between job seekers in the market place. The same is for degree qualifications which are becoming an increasing norm. If you want job security there are a few things you could be proposing1) Workplace flexibility instead of rigid union agreements2) Business certainty when it comes to taxes and regulations which all the new legislation hasn't helped. We should especially avoid rushed legislation that business has not had time to react to before it is implemented. 3) Assistance for small business ventures to start up as small business is the nations largest employer.

Its a pity as a union leader you fail to touch on any of them. What we don't need are more public servants, more articles from people involved without solutions present and more financial mismanagement.

I don't trust you to achieve any of them Charlie Donnelly. The National Union of Workers is facing decreasing membership for a reason. Leadership

Plenty for everyone:

04 Sep 2013 7:21:26pm

You say we don't need any more public servants, however every time new laws are passed or are ammended someone has to see that they are carried out. So more laws & regulations require more public servants. Likewise with the sick & elderly, as more people become elderly & sick we need more nurses & doctors who are public servants to look after them in public hospitals & other public facilities. More criminal laws require more police to police them, the new laws won't police themselves. But it is fun to bash public servants whenever the need arises such as an election, either state or federal.

JohnnoH:

04 Sep 2013 8:43:48pm

We definitely don't need privatisation of public services because that serves no one, except stakeholders and the bottom line. And in reality the private sector is no more efficient then the public sector.

OntheRun:

Secondly, having worked in all levels of government, I know government (especially the federal) is highly inefficient, ineffective and has an inbuilt sense of entitlement by many employees.

The Federal government has made Canberra the city with the highest average wage in Australia. This is by taxing other people who actually create jobs. The public service just tries to regulate jobs.

I don't want service delivery job cuts. What I would welcome is job cuts and a complete rehiring of all E1's and above. The selection criteria process has made them great at waffle and inept at service.

Peter:

05 Sep 2013 12:13:13am

Police are a state matter.. And they certainly haven't gone up in numbers like the public service in Canberra.Also a new policeman isn't required every time a new law is made...Doctors and nurses are also generally a state issue, with many doctors private.. Nice try still.

Plenty for everyone:

05 Sep 2013 12:12:44pm

Politicians are our lawmakers, that is they sit in Parliament and introduce Bills which may or may not be voted into Law. Laws are needed in all aspects of society otherwise anarchy reigns or so we are told. But then one only has to look at failed states such as Somalia to see the result of a lack of laws. Businesses love laws that reduce competition in their neck of the woods, so much so that they even write the laws (Bills) for the politicians to enact, see Bilateral trade agreements, heavy compliance 'costs' which eliminate newcomers, restricting trade to ther own monopolies/duopolies such as the AHA, Pharmacies, the list goes on & on.We have something called the Australian Federal Police who police Federal criminal laws, you know the anti-terrorist laws for instance, they are also sent overseas to help out close neighbours control the peace (East Timor, New Caledonia) If I recall the AFP have increased in numbers to help police the newish said laws, also the intelligence groups (secret police) have also increased numbers to police the new laws put in place after 911.The state health systems are funded partly by the Federal government, so more public system doctors & nurses are paid for by the Federal system. This ongoing issue between all states & the federal Govenment is still a bone of contention for the 'players'.

Cherna:

04 Sep 2013 4:29:07pm

What a strange question to ask of the coalition considering that the unemployment rate is about to climb to 800,000 under Labor? It currently stands at 600,000 and that's bad enough. This is the highest number of Australian's unemployed registered including Howard's tenure.

If the coalition arrest the climb to 800,000 they would have achieved a result would they not? Under competent economic management that the Coalition's record points to would mean higher productivity and therefor greater employment.

Lets look at some numbers collected by the ABS to show what was done by Howard by comparison to what was done by Labor in the disastrous 6 years of economic mismanagement:

Let's cut to the chase.

In October 2007, at the end of Howard's tenure there were (officially) 471,000 unemployed Australians.

In March 2013 (Labor Gillard Rudd tenure) it was 672,000.

This is an increase of about 43%, but taking into account the increase in population, let's call it (relatively) a third, even though we can see it's 200,000 people.

Made all the worse now with a projected 800,000 unemployed post election on figures supplied by Bowen, Rudd and Co...

Esteban:

04 Sep 2013 6:35:13pm

It is explaines by:

re regulating the workforce during a GFCintroducing a carbon tax introducing a mining taxcreating a structural deficit in the budgetracking up debt in a futile attempt to prevent a recession thus neglecting infastructure.

JohnnoH:

04 Sep 2013 8:49:46pm

Labor never neglected infrastructure. I'm looking at upgrades to roads and roads that have been upgraded in Queensland over the last 6 years and it been phenominal, then there is the NBN which Abbott was to shut down or give Rupert a controlling interest because it offers for free that you pay for on Foxtel. Have you forgotten 11.5 years of neglect under Howard?

Leaning Right:

Cherna why do you bother if the lefties are too lazy to find the data for themselves - after all you did point them to ABS for that data.

Please lets not end up with another hung parliament. Vote so as to put the Greenies and Independents Last.

In the Senate take care as you vote may have unexpected results. Vote above the line for the Libs to be certain that the Greens end up last, If you vote for Labor they preference the Greens so you'll end up with a irresponsible Green party representing no more than 10% of the electorate and yet they could end up with a balance of power stifling progress to a balanced set of accounts.

patarus:

The casualisation of the workforce is not a current event but has accelerated under the tutelage of Labor.

Casualisation was deemed to be around 25-40% of the workforce - but now after Labor's ineptitude is probably closer to 35-50%.

Labor who keeps announcing "worker's rights" just did not practice what it preached.

Worker's get rights when the economy is in good shape - confidence is there and there is competition by employers to get the right candidate with an offer of permanency.

Consider that for the last eighteen months (at least) the recruitment industry has been on "slow". They have the greatest number of well qualified candidates for any job.

But the employment is not happening because Labor has muted business confidence by its own volition of negativity.

Put the Rudd rhetoric to one side about visions for the future. The Labor government took on the job to get it right in the short term as well.

The development of the workforce is not a magic show at election time. Labor has not delivered otherwise we would not be writing their obituary.

The destabilized Gillard government by Rudd failed to keep its eye on our ball - the aspirational , the unemployed, the redundant - as it was frying its own fish.

We can look at any number of numbers but all the numbers are of the same ilk - in the same vein - have a southerly drift to them - and they all point to an insufferable labor government that just simply failed to manage economics in the right manner and paid to do.

kenj:

04 Sep 2013 6:15:07pm

The casualization of the workforce is a global phenomenon that has absolutely nothing to do with the Labor government. Employers love a casualized workforce. It's so easy to hold the threat of dismissal over an employee's head. Labor has nothing to do with it.

A happy little debunker:

04 Sep 2013 6:56:55pm

Since the one of the thrusts of this article is to the casualisation of the workforce - coupled with your demonisations of the LNP (in your other comments on this article), with your cliam "that has absolutely nothing to do with the Labor government", but the LNP do - rings very hollow.

patarus:

Miowarra:

05 Sep 2013 7:58:24am

Whatever "uncertainty" there might be, patty, has been caused by Tony Abbott, Andrew Robb, Joe Hockey & their owners, Murdoch & Sons, who have spent the last six years spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt for short-term political purposes.

None of the longest fear campaign in Australian history (and I include the propaganda put out during the years 1939-45) has been based in fact.

It's all been lies and innuendo and the people who have done it have done the country a massive disservice.

They don't know how to fix it and they're going to attack Australian citizens while they play with the levers of power and learn how to run the country.

They're inexperienced and they're ignorant of how the place runs because they've been focussed only on the desires of business, not the whole country.

Setting them loose on the economy is like allowing a bunch of drunk teenage boys run the rail system or fiddle with the traffic lights from Traffic Control.

Plenty for everyone:

04 Sep 2013 7:25:46pm

Especially when the employee is up to their neck in debt from Howard's decade of rampant private debt. Those of us who own our own homes have more freedom to tell bad bosses to shove it and they most certainly don't like that wrong attitude.

Peter:

05 Sep 2013 12:18:34am

Yep Howard just twisted your arm and made you borrow..Or perhaps provided an economic situation and a employment situation where you felt confident to do so.. as you still had a job, could negotiate a good wage and the business you were working for was in good enough shape that you didn't consider it could fail... Now you work for the PS or have a casual position as your employer doesn't have the confidence to put people on full time.

Tristan:

05 Sep 2013 10:18:33am

"The casualisation of the workforce is not a current event but has accelerated under the tutelage of Labor."

Patarus,

That's rubbish.

It was Howard, Costello, Abbott and Hockey always harping on about "flexibility" (casualisation) and that's reflected in its policies of promoting labour hire, short term, casual, hourly paid employment agency jobs, full time casuals, long term temps, rolling short term contracts so that staff work like full time staff but without the benefits, Workchoices, Job Network 15 hr jobs, welfare to work reforms, 457 visas.

Australia became the second highest casualised workforce of the OECD countries under the Howard government.

The Liberals are so committed to casualising the workforce and chipping away at their pay and conditions that Abbott and the 3 state Liberal governments in Vic, NSW and Qld are sacking tens of thousands of public servants, collectively spending billions of dollars on employment agency tenders and replacing public servants with casuals, contractors and labour hire staff.

Abbott also strongly opposed the ALP's amendments to the Liberals' 457 policy - Abbott voted against employers using overseas workers as their first resort to undercut local wages and conditions, voted against mandatory labour market testing to test whether there are genuine skills shortages in 700 occupations, resisted compulsory advertisements locally and opposed the trainng levy.

Tom1:

The example Donnelly gives in relation to Coles and Woolworths justifies tie presence of Unions.

Hockey is the master of hyperbole, I think even better than Abbott. Everything is going to be better under a Liberal Government, trust me.

The rubbish they spout about an improved economy comes with no explanation how, a bit like how the elaborate PPL scheme will increase productivity. He actually needs to show how this scheme will increase productivity by much more than the $20bn it will cost to implement over the next four years..

Anyone who suggests that he can show this is dreaming and out of touch with reality, and should try his hand at Liberal politics.

OUB :

04 Sep 2013 7:02:22pm

Do you believe the NUW's actions taken to improve the lot of Woolies and Coles workers have been sufficient to justify the union fees deducted from their pay, given the drift to casualisation has continued unabated? Rhetorical question I'm sorry, neither of us are in a position to answer that sensibly. But my doubts remain. Meanwhile NUW officials have quite good job security I imagine, until they get ambitious or disagree with the top tiers.

Tom1:

tomtoot:

05 Sep 2013 12:10:10am

Hi OUB: If all was fair and honest we wouldn't need unions - but we do - and if Abbott gains power we will see again how important unions are in protecting the rights of workers - because governments cannot and don't protect workers unless they are forced to do so?

Miowarra:

It happened to me similarly in 1994, under the Greiner/Fahey Liberal NSW governments.

I was a union member and my union fought for our jobs (there were 1600 of us) and negotiated reasonable packages but I wasn't able to get further employment until 2000. That lasted for only two years.

Luckily, I've been able to retire and am now free from the tyranny of employers.

If you're an employee, you need to become a Union member now, before it's too late. A Liberal government will resume its attack upon the union movement and upon workers' rights and your only defence will be collective action as a member of a strong union.

Your employer is NOT your friend.The Liberal Party is the employers' friend, not yours.You have been warned.

frangipani:

04 Sep 2013 7:19:08pm

The problem, Miowarra, is that unions will fight to protect members but not to create new jobs for people who aren't members. It becomes well nigh impossible for small businesses to hire permanent staff because of the obligations - so they keep casuals, or the owners do the weekend work because they can't afford penalty rates for employees. Is this really conducive to higher employment?

Some unions understand the realities; some are all about protecting benefits rather than extending opportunities to young folk entering the labour market with not much to offer an employer. There have to be compromises, and there has to be flexibility, or we end up with the stultified system that France has, and regular riots from unemployed, frustrated youth closed out of the job market.

Serenity:

04 Sep 2013 9:23:47pm

Don't like unions, do you.Well, did you enjoy your full weekend?Do you like having sick days to use?Do you like holidays?Perhaps you should go to work and tell your employer that you don't require any of these benefits because you hate unions.

tomtoot:

05 Sep 2013 12:32:29am

Hi frangipani: You state'The problem, Miowarra, is that unions will fight to protect members but not to create new jobs for people who aren't members. It becomes well nigh impossible for small businesses to hire permanent staff because of the obligations'

Incorrect!

You continue: 'so they keep casuals, or the owners do the weekend work because they can't afford penalty rates for employees. Is this really conducive to higher employment?'

Incorrect!

The rest of your rhetoric could become a reality without common sense intervening :'Some unions understand the realities; some are all about protecting benefits rather than extending opportunities to young folk entering the labour market with not much to offer an employer. There have to be compromises, and there has to be flexibility, or we end up with the stultified system that France has, and regular riots from unemployed, frustrated youth closed out of the job market.'

Casual workers are not slaves, so don't treat them as such - if you own a business then treat your workers with respectBusiness hires casuals to cut costs - cutting costs does not mean you treat a worker as an item who has no meaning other than your bottom line - If running a business means you have to do the out of hours work yourself, then so be it

Remember, your employee has a life outside of there job just as you do - they are not your slave - they to could have children or a husband or wife who have the same needs as yourself - treat them with the same dignity and respect as you would expect - my GOD - it's no wonder we need laws to protect workers when people like you try to justify that unions are a hindrance - a thorn in the side to business profitability? think $$$$$$ - not families?

Miowarra:

Michael:

04 Sep 2013 8:48:50pm

Thursday 2006 my boss rings me and says "Do not go to work tomorrow you are sacked because I do not like you." There are two reasons as to why this happened, your boss was not a very nice boss or you were not a very nice employee. If your boss was not a nice boss why would you want to work for him anyway and if you were not a nice employee why should he have to employ you?

Charles NSW:

04 Sep 2013 4:42:59pm

Sadly there are many lies being told in this election by Dr No and the Coaltion. Supported by Murdoch, Rheinhart, Mining, Big Business they are doing everything in their power to get rid of Labor. If one looks at the policies in front of them and look at them honestly Coaltion is not even in the race. We should be saying thanks for getting us out of the GFC, bringing in Broadband after negotiating with Telstra, giving us Climate Change and into an ETS which everyone wanted. Thanks for a sound economy despite problems such as a downturn economy worldwide. There are many more policies introduced that we should be saying thanks to yet going by the polls we are kicking Labor out. They deserve better!

JohnnoH:

04 Sep 2013 8:54:22pm

No one who releases the costings at the last moment so they can't be checked can be considered honest, in fact it hard to consider them as anything but criminals. But then they got away with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

GJA:

04 Sep 2013 5:04:52pm

It is not in the LNP's interest to promote policies that in any way enhance job security, because it is against the interests of their big business pay masters to allow workers to have any strength in the workplace, let alone job security. They won't say that, because businesses don't vote: individuals do. So long as people generally are gulled into believing the unsupportable rhetoric of the LNP as superior economic managers and continue to believe the LNP will act in their interests, they will get the votes, and the strident support evidenced on forums like this one. And when they get hurt, they will blame anyone but their LNP masters.

frangipani:

04 Sep 2013 7:23:34pm

Odd, but the ALP has been the government for six years and I haven't noticed any improvement at all in job security. I do know that the industries supported by government - think automobiles - can't offer any job security at all because the industries themselves are going down the tube.

As for public servants, having been one, I am perfectly confident in saying that the government is employing a lot of people to do stuff the government shouldn't be doing in the first place. That's not productivity; that's a misappropriation of taxpayer money. It's very expensive welfare.

tomtoot:

05 Sep 2013 12:41:59am

Hi frangipani - you state 'As for public servants, having been one, I am perfectly confident in saying that the government is employing a lot of people to do stuff the government shouldn't be doing in the first place. That's not productivity; that's a misappropriation of taxpayer money. It's very expensive welfare.'

From your posts you deserve not to have a job any more as a public servant?

Verity:

05 Sep 2013 4:47:33am

Thats an amazing statement frangipani. You were a public servant and you believe that "there was a misappropriation of taxpayers money? It was expensive welfare?" You actually accepted your pay every week? Your conscience let you put out your hand and accept expensive welfare?

Are you by any chance now a consultant to a Government Department ? Did you retire and take your Super and go back to that very department as a Consultant?

As for the auto industry Ford and Holden have had problems for many years, I remember in Brisbane workers were put off at Ford before Christmas many a year and not rehired until March/April of the following year. That of course was not deemed "having job security" and wonder of wonders, it was the Liberals who were in power at the time.

The car industry is going down the tube as you put it because of competition. They have not moved with the times and met the needs of the public and have been outmanoeuvered by the Japanese and Korean manufacturers in particular who can provide a better car for a cheaper price.

Richard M:

There is also the 12,000 public service jobs to go, which has hardly caused a murmur. Don't count on it being done through natural attrition. Not in the budget emergency we're facing.

Imagine if it were 1,200 car industry jobs or 120 jobs at a chocolate factory in Tasmania. You'd have politicians on the case immediately. But public service jobs aren't real jobs are they ? Come think it of they're not even real people. They're public servants, shiny bums, pen pushers, that's all they are.

It's about they joined the rest of us in the real world, and joined us in the race to the bottom.

llanfair:

04 Sep 2013 6:20:54pm

12,000 positions over 3 years for the Federal Public Service is a turnover rate of 4%. Or in other words, to fail to achieve this, the average public servant spends more than 25 years in the public service. In other industries, turnover ranges between 12% and 20% (e.g. workers spend from 8 down to 5 years on average with the same employer).

TBH, it is the 25-year-ers that scare me more!

If you haven't transformed public service delivery in the first five years, what the hell are you doing in the next 20?????

GJA:

04 Sep 2013 6:42:03pm

Turnover of 12-20% is a terrible cost to a business, and no business I've ever worked in has accepted such rates as normal or beneficial. It doesn't work out to be employees spending 5-8 years with the same employer, although many will. It's a revolving door of employment, with many workers on their way out within their first 1-5 years. 4% turnover is manageable, even expected, but it's "turnover", not "attrition". Hockey's not talking about replacement rates; he's just talking about cutting heads.

And who is responsible for "[transforming] public service delivery"? Ordinary public servants or their bosses? Do you understand how hard it is for anyone, public service or private industry, to improve processes and outcomes if management doesn't want it to be so? Let Hockey transform the Treasury, then, but first evaluate the best approach to do so, rather than starting by cutting heads indiscriminately. Find the right heads. Strategy, not tactics, that is, something the LNP shows no predisposition for.

llanfair:

04 Sep 2013 9:08:35pm

Absolute nonsense. If one-fifth, to one-eighth of your staff resigns each year you are in control of quality. All of them expect the "Oh no! Please don't leave line", because they all think they are worth more than they are. They are not!

The ones that are you accommodate.

As for who is responsible, if you have a boss (and are pushing this line) then you are.

Every boss is smarter than every employee by the simple fact that they are the boss! Gee I am so clever because I earn $250K less than so and so. I am so important because this programme that will never achieve anything is more important than another programme that will never achieve anything.

Put enough dumb people in a line and one will approve and one will reject a good idea. We call it bureaucracy.

Transforming the Public Sector is recognising its limitations and allocating work accordingly.

Having people work for one organisation for 25 years kills innovation. And yes Minister, after due deliberation and a cross departmental think tank we can come up with a short list of ideas that can lead to a series of committees to assess the pros and cons of each option is a nice tactic. A Strategy would say the system is broken. Here is the new System; and this is how we will implement it.

GJA:

05 Sep 2013 11:47:36am

Your response demonstrates only that you believe in indiscriminate cuts to staff, not in improvements. It is a childish rant without foundation, plucking numbers out of the air to support a simplistic and ultimately worthless argument.

JohnnoH:

04 Sep 2013 9:00:33pm

12,000 people gone out the workforce, that is a lot money taken out the the communities where they live. Then there is the ripple-on effect, like what happened in Queensland where it effected small businesses like coffee shops and papershops which closed adding to the unemployment rate. In the first year of the LNP government taking office in Queensland unemployment jumped by 1% as direct result of their policies. And as far as fiscal managers are concerned Nicholls brought down a budget deficit of more than twice than of Swann's per capita.

The Future:

05 Sep 2013 2:01:31am

First of all, the 12,000 public service jobs figure is IN ADDITION to the 4,00 already announced by Labour, therefore the total is 16,000.

Secondly, the reason that the LNP's claimed savings figures from this of $5.2 billion were so much higher than the figures provided by Finance & Treasury to Labor of $2.8 billion is that the LNP costed them as ALL 16,000 public servants being sacked by October 2013.

At June 2012, there were 168,580 APS employees. This means that the LNP's claimed savings are based on a 9.5% reduction in the the Federal Public service by the end of next month. If you don't think that this would have massive impact on service delivery by Government Departments then you're kidding yourself.

That said, I don't believe that the LNP will achieve this level of reduction in anywhere near this time frame(or even intend to try). I think the calculations of them all leaving in October is just a cynical effort to paper over the holes in their budget costings.

Esteban:

The public service would surely be made up of some of the most talented employees in the country.

It is a myth that the public service is a sheltered workshop made up of inefficient , unionised work to rule individuals.

These 12,000 talented individuals will be snapped up in the real economy. Released into the productive economy their talent will be harnessed for the greater good because they will add more value to a business than their wages.

kenj:

04 Sep 2013 7:02:20pm

We can drive them round in mini buses and deposit them on street corners just before sunset. In the morning they'll be gone, taken into new jobs paying even higher wages. It's a wonder the rest of the world hasn't cottoned on to this revered tenet of business faith. Perhaps if we dropped everyone off on street corners the economy would boom.

frangipani:

04 Sep 2013 7:28:31pm

I'm a strong believer in the public service. I'm not a strong believer in a federal government employing large numbers of people to manage programs which are within the mandate of the states. There's one helluva a lot of duplication and overmanagement within government at all levels, and also a lot of resources wasted on things that aren't or shouldn't be within the embrace of the feds. Let the states deal with education; the mere fact the Kevin is talking about taking over TAFEs is illustrative to me of government losing sight of what its key areas are, creating new, non-core programs, and then building a bureaucracy to support them.

tomtoot:

05 Sep 2013 12:55:14am

Hi Esteban: Are you seriously of the belief that 12000 civil service jobs will be axed under an Abbott government - then ask yourself how many jobs were axed under Campbell Newman? as Abbott and Hockey say repeatedly - do the maths?

Forrest Gardener:

04 Sep 2013 5:08:32pm

Chris, you've made two fundamental errors.

First, the statement that the best job security is a profitable employer is fundamentally true. If your employer is not profitable it will cease to exist and so will your job. The exception, of course, is those on the government payroll.

The idea that profitable employers should guarantee job security is a different proposition entirely (although not one without merit).

Secondly, the idea that somebody should force employers to provide greater job security is fraught with difficulties. Not the least is that the harder it is to fire someone, the harder the decision to hire them in the first place.

Industrial relations is a complex subject. Before you comment on industrial relations policy, try to think things through. Otherwise you will be unaware of the contradiction between secure employment and being employed in the first place.

GJA:

04 Sep 2013 6:43:53pm

That's simplistic at best. How long did it take for Apple to become profitable, or many other businesses? It doesn't just fall from the sky. The best job security is an employer willing to commit to their staff in equal measure to their staff's commitment.

Forrest Gardener:

GJA:

05 Sep 2013 11:51:17am

The commitment in a start-up is to the performers, of course, but it exists, and quite strongly. Start-ups would prize and reward staff. Engagement and retention would be essential to success and therefore the achievement of profit as soon as possible. The profit doesn't always come first.

frangipani:

04 Sep 2013 7:33:55pm

I expect Apple is quite ruthless about getting rid of non-performers.

I frankly don't have a lot of respect for employers who keep both productive and non-productive employees employed in secure jobs. If I'm good at my job, I don't want someone who's lousy at it to enjoy the same benefits, security and promotions as I do. I want some recognition that I'm worth more than the guy sleeping at the next desk. And if I don't get it, I am not going to be happy. I really don't care that the union says we're all equal, because we're not. If I work harder, work better, work smarter, I want some reward for it.

GJA:

05 Sep 2013 11:55:34am

"Ruthless"? I doubt it. They wouldn't hire without some assurances of productivity, and wouldn't fire without cause. The cost can be enormous. Staff would be managed, perhaps managed out, and redundancies happen even in an enterprise of size and success. "Sleeping at the . . . desk" is cause for dismissal, but underperformance can come from other issues than just lower competence.

Desk workers aren't often unionised, either, so your argument devolves into a rant. Perhaps you don't believe yourself to be fairly treated in your current workplace?

IanM:

04 Sep 2013 5:08:43pm

"Australia's economy has grown and grown, but so has casual employment". Interesting. Perhaps there's a causal relationship there. Charlie Donnelly seems to think so. Economy grows and casual employment grows. Or perhaps it should be casual employment grows and the economy grows. Perhaps it has something to do with the difference between casual and full-time employment.

I have a dim memory of a debate about flexibility in the workplace and how that might make businesses more profitable, but it seems like a long time ago when this was discussed last. Certainly nothing recently during the election campaign. I guess if businesses are profitable then they could expand and employ more people.

But perhaps not as Charlie Donnelly concludes that corporate profits and "insecure work" have risen together. What could have caused that I wonder? Could the advantages of a casual workforce over a full-time workforce have something to do with Charlie and his colleagues? Surely not; afterall Charlie seems to be against that, so I'm sure he wouldn't do anything to tip the balance in favour of casual employment. It's a conundrum, isn't it?

For some reason the phrase "law of unintended consequences" keeps popping into my head, but I'm sure it will go away eventually.

kenj:

04 Sep 2013 6:27:29pm

I'll tell you how casual employment works, IanM.

Over the past two months, the US economy has replaced 148,000 full-time jobs with part-time positions, according to data from the US Labor Department. Almost all new jobs are part-time labor because employers are responding to the Obama administration?s Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under that law employers have to provide health insurance cover for full time employees working over 30 hours a week. So businesses everywhere are now sacking their full time workers and employing them for 29.5 hours a week, throwing all of their medical burdens on to the State. The US lost a combined 148,000 full-time jobs in June and July, while adding 534,000 part-time jobs. So far this year, more than three quarters of new US jobs have been part-time.This is what happens when business denies that it has a social contract with its employees or the State and chooses short term profits over long term economic viability.

An increasingly casualized workforce, both here and overseas, is not a sign of employers pulling their weight. It represents a pattern of increasing disengagement by employers from any social contracts and the economic life of the nation. They want low wages, flat rates, unfettered hire and fire powers and no broader obligations. They're greedy and they'll invent any lie in order to get all of the money.

IanM:

04 Sep 2013 7:33:23pm

I know how casual employment works kenj, I've done it. It was a long time ago, so I can be sure that employing casuals has been an option for a long time. Donnelly's only real point is that the proportion of casual to full time employment has been increasing and that this has been accompanied by economic growth. Apart from blaming his political opponents, he gives no convincing reason why this might be so. He understandably skirts over the fact that this trend has continued under his Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, but it is difficult to see if he realises the role his organisation has had in this or if he just doesn't get it.

Sadly, from your closing comments, it would appear you are similarly unable to see beyond a class war mind set. You've offered the observation that casualization of the workforce in the US has accelerated after Obamacare was introduced. I'm guessing that you can probably see the connection between increasing taxes and reducing rates of smoking. If so, why can't you see that increasing the cost of taking on a full-time employee will make it less attractive to do so?

In the end, businesses have to make a profit to survive and employ people. Increasing the costs of full-time employees makes this more difficult. Charlie Donnelly thinks that casual employment is insecure, but it isn't nearly insecure as employment of any kind by an unprofitable business.

kenj:

05 Sep 2013 9:59:26am

IanM, I've worked as a casual and hired casuals so I know what I'm talking about. US employers are not sacking full time workers and rehiring them as casuals because of prohibitive increases in health care costs, they are doing so simply because they have noted they can get away with it and pocket the savings. Walmart has been deliberately underpaying its workers so that they have to rely on public health services. The California government has recently determined that it costs them $3000 pa for each Walmart employee in the state and has passed a law requiring Walmart to pay that to them.

The US is different in its inclusion of job health benefits but that is how their labor laws have developed. But US corporate profitability figures are at all time highs -- stratospheric levels. These are not companies going broke by any means. They simply have decided that they are going to reduce pay and employment conditions to peasant levels. The UK is following the same way.

Now either all of these employers and businesses are broke or they are just plain greedy which is what the numbers support. Businesses for many years have made profits while employing full time workers. It is a complete fiction that they are now so poor that they cannot do so. It is class warfare. Open your eyes.

OUB :

04 Sep 2013 7:54:40pm

What a ridiculous responsibility to impose on employers. Surely if government wants people to have health insurance it is government's responsibility to levy taxes to fund such a scheme. I can only imagine how ruinously expensive health insurance would be in the US with their culture of litigation. Obama's team can't be that stupid that they couldn't foresee that outcome.

Michael:

A Mum:

04 Sep 2013 5:10:40pm

I read your article with interest and wonder if you consider the vast numbers of small business owners like my partner. We don't get any sick leave or leave loading entitlements, we aren't guaranteed how much we earn every week. We try and average it out and take home a pay that will cover our costs and some weeks we don't even make that. We have no union to represent us and if you know the hours my partner works for his take home pay you would be appalled. Our business costs are constantly rising and revenue is falling, yet people like us constantly risk everything to try to be a small to medium business owner and try to employ more people and build our business. The one thing that I do know is that when we have a Coalition government in power business is better than when a Labor government is in. Under a Coalition government we are able to expand and when Labor is in we have less revenue and have to wind back and do more hours ourselves to survive. And people wonder why we don't vote Labor. Big Business isn't everything, small business employ a lot of staff as well and we need to be profitable to survive.

Small retailer:

Rob:

04 Sep 2013 11:32:04pm

My daughter and her hubby run a small corporate service business-their biggest client told them to take a 5% cut in the ri fees.My mates son in law has an IT contract with Rio-they cut his contract fees by $20G a year,8000 dairy farmers have left the industry because of the activities of Coles and Wollies.If businesses cut wages and contract fees- banks do not lend people do not have the money to spend in YOUR business. Its called the domino effect - or big fish eating little fish- its BUSINESS.

struck dumb:

04 Sep 2013 5:12:40pm

The casualisation of the workforce doesn't just affect job security, it drastically affects the housing industry, and eventually will hit sales of larger and smaller household items and service industries as people are unable to get mortgages and loans. Until that happens, and big business starts squealing because it has slit its own throat and lost its profits, nothing is going to happen. And there is always the spectre of Workchoices; was that a true promise, a non-true promise, or a downright lie that its not coming back?It doesn't matter which party gets in. Job security, as the voters know it, is not going to improve until the corporate accountants and managers (who are extremely slow learners) understand that if you cut your workforce to the bone, and all your mates do the same, you are destroying the very market for the goods you produce. No markets = no profts. Its not a political situation, so there is no political solution; its based purely on corporate greed and a world economy that functions on the principle of "screw you mate!"

Stirrer:

anote:

04 Sep 2013 5:14:47pm

Then there is the "efficiency dividend"; a big pile of baloney no mater with side uses it.

It is an old overused idea which major benefits have long been exhausted.

It generally assumes enormous waste without really knowing how much waste there is. Those that instigate it commonly cut just assuming there will not be practical delivery consequences just because efficiency of 100% is unattainable so cuts will force the use up of 'slack'. They commonly end up decreasing efficiency. There is no reason to believe that the proponents practically understand that 100% efficiency, besides being impossible, is undesirable. The most efficient systems overall contain processes that operate at less than 100% efficiency because if all processes ran at a defined 100% efficiency there would be no slack to devote to improvement.

That is not a good explanation but proponents of the "efficiency dividend" are probably just making great big guesses for no good reason.

That is all a guess on my part as well but it is an impression formed by a failure of politicians instil confidence that they know better.

Brett:

04 Sep 2013 5:15:14pm

Let's not forget either the companies that relocate jobs overseas in order to hold up or boost their profits. Not much guaranteed or even reasonable job security for those workers whose jobs are next on the list to be exported.

In spite of the Coalition sales pitch, I never hear companies or the various business umbrella groups suggesting that their workers need/deserve a bit more job security or a pay increase - no matter how good the times.

ddande:

04 Sep 2013 5:22:58pm

This article dissapoints me rather than surprises me. One has to ask why the question is being asked of Abbott and not of Rudd?Considering the Car Industry failures- visas debacle -Labor government telling companies to move to Asia, increased Taxes to Mining , increased costs by way of - sssshh the dreaded CT to many industries .etc. etc. Surely if the Coalition did absolutely nothing it would be more productive than the destruction that the Union supported Labor government has wreaked on Australia ?

Stirrer:

04 Sep 2013 11:44:47pm

Tell me ddande- did debt- private debt have anything to do with it? What about globalisation? What DID cause the GFC? What has killed off our manufacturing industry? why did 8000 dairy farmers have to leave their farms?If people have no discretionary income left to spend and no capacity to borrow any more where is the money coming from to ;'grow" the economy.How come Norway has the largest wealth fund in the world- how come it manages to work with resource companies and retain euity in the Nation's resources?

ddande:

05 Sep 2013 12:15:38pm

Stirrer,I agree there are other influences for sure - however that's not what I stated - I asked why it was being asked of the person that is currently in opposition and not of the Government who have for the last Six years had a chance to address the issue and have failed to do so & in fact put Australians in a even more insecure position re. employment opportunities.

Miowarra:

05 Sep 2013 8:18:20am

There was a series of such negotiations under the Hawke/Keating governments.

They were called The Accords (Mk I-IV) but as soon as the first Howard Liberal government was elected, he repudiated the agreements which were already in place and began his attack on workers and their Union representatives that he misleadingly labelled "WorkChoices".

That was the resumption of the class war which had been suspended since the early 1970s.

llanfair:

04 Sep 2013 5:28:10pm

Having been self employed for 15 years, I empathise with some of the issues associated with not having a guaranteed monthly income; but in terms of apportioning blame, I would point out a couple of findings of the Henry Tax Review:

- Although Australia's top personal income tax rate is typical of the OECD, the absence of a social security tax means Australia has a high tax burden on capital income relative to comparable OECD countries, taking into account differences in capital tax settings.

- Australia's corporate tax rate is the eighth highest in the OECD and above the OECD average. Corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is the fourth highest in the OECD.

Also if you take into account the broader number of entities that are now incorporated versus unincorporated, you will find that as a % of GDP, corporate profits haven't changed much since 1965.

The cause of job security cannot be blamed on increasing demand for profit - it is more often or not driven by the need to sustain profit, because if you cannot generate an acceptable risk-weighted return, you will not have a company and so workforce mix is simply a theoretical exercise.

Much of the resultant casualisation of the workforce started in the early nineties, primarily as a result of constant increases in the minimum wage, industry-wide wage fixing, increasing demarcation and workplace inflexibility. Given the need to meet shareholder expectations (which have not changed dramatically, e.g. the 6% yield rule has been around for decades) managers had to better understand their staffing needs and focus on their core competencies.

Unfortunately for some of your members, stacking shelves is unlikely to be anyone's core competency; but the Union movement is as much to blame for the current situation as anyone else. The old rule of thumb was total employee cost = wages x 180%. On the current minimum fulltime wage this would be about $60K. Any position that cannot generate at least $61K of additional revenue is therefore a classic target for casualisation. Buy in what you need and no more.

I am one of the many Australians who benefits from casualisation - I have a large pool of customers I can sell my specialised skills to. But, that is the basis of job security - being in demand; not working in a world where you have a single employer for your entire working life, and where you fight any change in work practices.

The contradiction with the Union movement is that as much as they preach the need for secure employment, they consistently act to create inflexible workforces that are too risky to contemplate.

Stirrer:

05 Sep 2013 12:00:01am

Are there more Australian who benifit from casualisation than there are who do NOT benifit?Are corporations not seeking to exponentially increase their profits? BHP-RIO- CBA?Lets assume casualisation becomes the norm- and people will buy what they need and nor more -hooray-no more debt?but- how will the economy grow?Do we need to re configure the economy -and society?

anote:

05 Sep 2013 11:25:50am

"The cause of job security(sic) cannot be blamed on increasing demand for profit ..." pull the other one. "... it is more often or(sic) not driven by the need to sustain profit ..." although I get the point as an attitudinal approach, it is splitting hairs and misrepresents the reality in practice. The situation and pressures for some may be that they feel they have no choice but to adopt the same approach. That does not change the reality in practice that generally maximising profits are the driving force and achieved by maximising outputs while minimising inputs, which has an impact on job security.

ltfc1:

04 Sep 2013 5:33:00pm

I would seriously doubt that the union you represent has such a clear and almost pure of heart history when it comes to the issue of how your members money is spent and wasted every year. Given the history of union leadership in Australia and how you treat and pay your own workers and the demands placed upon them in the name of unionism I'm surprised you even had the audacity to write this piece of Coalition bashing rubbish. What security can any person give another in this day and age? Have the Labor states like South Australia been immune from public servant cuts? Try 5000 plus and what about the other states! The Federal Labor government has also clearly stated it's intention to cut public servant jobs. Companies around the world are cutting, moving and in some cases closing down because they can't compete with the likes of China, pay and conditions are costing them dearly (Holdens), government charges, compliance issues, OH&S and taxation to name but a few and of course your lot the unions demanding ever more when the writing is on the wall for all to see. The massive reduction in union membership is evidence that the business model of the past is no longer working and isn't it true that unions have also cut their workforce to meet the reduced demand for their product? People in glass houses should never throw stones!

D from Perth:

04 Sep 2013 5:35:40pm

Good and timely article Charlie. The Australian public don't seem to have a clue what policies they are actually voting for. In the UK "zero hours contracts" are becoming extemely widespread and Philip Adams discussed this on his show LNL last night. Casualisation of the workforce is a huge erosion of workers' rights. I have also heard of care assistants over there working on these contracts (for some of the now privatised NHS services) and only getting paid for the actual time they spend with a client on a home visit, excluding all the time taken for travelling between clients at home and work. One such worker said her pay rate was about 7 pounds UKk an hour (just over $10) and her hours had been effectively cut from a 40 hour week to less than a 20 hour week on some days, assuming she was actually called to go in to work. You ain't seen nothing yet!

Kenf :

04 Sep 2013 5:42:37pm

Except for the fact that I have dealt with the NUW (as an employee not an employer) I agree with a lot of the content of this article. However the NUW is the most backward, small minded unprofessional union I have ever dealt with! Sir your union encourages bad behaviour by employers by using poor organisers who not only have a poor understanding of legislation, but also are bullies & are not even respected by your smart/ good delegates. So I suggest before you start banging on about everyone else - get your own house in order. Oh by the way I would like to thank your organisers especially your national Workers comp guy for making me realise that my ex-employer was a lot different than I thought & that you guys are bullies. Really loved the kangaroo court you guys organised as well! At least now I'm away from all of that BS Hypocrites!Kenf & disillusioned ex-union & labor supporter

Kagey One:

04 Sep 2013 5:57:11pm

Ged Kearney observed some time ago that "flexibility" is the new F-word in employer-employee relations.If my workplace is anything to judge by, this is also my experience.There is a dispute, currently before FairWork Australia, that shows just how much our employer wishes to "flex" its employees. Hopefully that protective authority will regard the questions even-handedly.But... what is the coalition view of FairWork Australia? I'm guessing they would prefer to remove this left-inspired arbitrator, in the name of "flexibility", of course.

seajae:

04 Sep 2013 6:07:13pm

what a load of garbage, under labor unemployment has gone up and up, it was the lowest under howard. Unions are the cause for most of the problems we are seeing, in Victoria the cfmeu is fight grocon but to push their point they are including secondary companies that only supply material to them, Boral have taken them to court over it because it is causing big problems with their workforce as well. The unions are simply at their end of usefulness, they are no longer needed espcially their bullying of workers etc to do as they say, your a pack of hooligans that simply want to get your own way and as many backhanders as possible, oh, and a job as a govt minister.

Peter of Melbourne:

04 Sep 2013 6:10:49pm

The Carbon Tax/Carbon Schemes are just exercises in ego's. Australia does not produce enough CO2 on the global scale to warrant wasting $10's of billions more on that act of stupidity when our global output is negligible. So scratch that strawman argument.

"I haven't yet picked up any direct connections between cracking down on "illegal boat arrivals" and "job security"+National security however demands we control our borders. A core responsibility the Labor party completely failed in.

"these two supermarket giants now employ many of their warehouse workers casually through third party labour hire companies"+The decline in employment standards is just as much Labors fault as the LNP's. It is a two party system we operate under and both have held Government over the decades of decline.

So in the end this whole article just reinforces the failure of Labor Governments as well as Liberal Governments to the majority of citizens in this country over the past couple of decades. What was the point of it since it only points out the bleeding obvious which is well known already and offers no solutions!

paulinadelaide:

04 Sep 2013 6:16:00pm

I believe it was your party that chucked workchoices and introduced FWA. Increased casualisation has to some extent been the result. None of my casuals want to be part-time, but most (students excepted) would take a fulltime offer. Over the past 18 months 20% of my FT staff have resigned (or been pushed), none of these have been replaced with FT staff. We expect our other staff to take up some slack and just add more casuals where required. Of the remaining FT staff we would only replace about 50% as FT positions. The other 50% we would do what we've been doing the last 18 months. Part of this is FWA, part is economic, part is the nature of some of the work. But also a significant part is peace of mind. I am totally sick of being held responsible for every aspect of my staffs lives. Ultimately the use of casuals pushes the pendulum of the FWA back towards the centre. Except the issue of penalty rates remains. These rates are of course partially subsidised by my most skilled FT staff.The writer bemoans a lot but offers no remedies. I'm aware of the push by unions on casualisation but strangely the ALP itself has mostly been silent on the topic.I could add Governments themselves are casualising their workforces.

maggie:

04 Sep 2013 6:51:59pm

Job security went out the door in qld when the libs thought they were putting god in place, since then the level of unemployment has jumped, And next election he will be out the door, now you have abbott the rabbit saying he will create so many jobs in qld, what is he going to do tell cant do newman to undo the damage he did, don't think so, any one who thinks Australia will benefit under the libs is a fool with their head stuck in the ground, like an ostrich. Abbott hasn't got the guts to put out his costing's because he knows they wont stand up. Cant wait to see them my self but doubt very much if they will be accurate or trustworthy. I am preparing for the biggest recession since the 40's and I think others should do so also as the only ones who will benefit will be big business and the small business will sink in the mire as they wont be able to compete. Do I feel sorry for them no I don't as they will have brought it on them selves, just like the QLD voters found out to late and ended up with no jobs, the only reason people are scared is the campaign of the libs negativity on the economy and of the carbon tax, if the carbon tax is so bad why has Tasmania's electricity supplier made a profit of 76 million dollars, carbon didn't put the price up the greed of people put it up as they saw a way to blame something else for the costs going up, if you think it will come down then you are fools. My own ergon bill is 150dollars every 3 months, I don't waste power and use it sensibly. I have even saved quite a bit this last 2 weeks as I switched the tv off because I don't like the rabbit having the channel's filled with ads paid for by tobacco companies.

The Reg:

Peter Graham:

05 Sep 2013 7:10:37am

Maggie, you could save on electricity by getting a job. Where do you get your facts about QLd from? They are just not true, must be from the Labor party handbook of lies and spin.It is obvious why costing are put out so late when liars like Rudd, Bowen and Wong, tell such porky's that the treasury has to come out and call them liars, this has never happened before.Hopefully you and your kind will now hibernate until the next election.

oneman:

04 Sep 2013 7:11:07pm

The coal industry has had the highest exports ever for the month of july yet in the last three months there have been 9000 jobs lost in the industry. The banks have sacked tens of thousands of staff over the last decade but they announce new records in profitability every year. Abbotts plan is to increase job insecurity so that people will work for less. They will be a disaster for working class Australia.

kenj:

OUB :

04 Sep 2013 7:19:20pm

I am genuinely curious how much responsibility Charlie feels the union movement should bear for the trend towards casualisation. After all, if they hadn't urged Rudd and Gillard to overturn decades of labour market reform by introducing 150 or so changes empowering unions at the expense of employers the imperatives to reintroduce more flexibility into the system to redress this reregulation would not have been so great. You push in there and a bulge magically appears somewhere else.

Abbott and Hockey probably are indulging in a few too many spin classes at the moment. They do seem a tad less desperate in their pronouncements than Labor just the same. Job security would come through a steadier economy. By running a loose monetary policy, as Labor traditionally does, more volatility is introduced into the economic system. The ship's list eventually gets to dangerous levels and drastic action needs to be taken. Magic puddings lose their buoyancy.

It is not the obligation of business to provide welfare for the nation's less fortunate. That is the role of government. Governments should shoulder that responsibility. If it involves raising taxes and paying a political price for doing so that is government's lot.

ummagumma:

tomtoot:

05 Sep 2013 1:06:36am

Hi OUB : You really are a duck egg with regard to unions, business, and the illusion of government?

Now just look at what you stated ' Abbott and Hockey probably are indulging in a few too many spin classes at the moment. They do seem a tad less desperate in their pronouncements than Labor just the same. Job security would come through a steadier economy. By running a loose monetary policy, as Labor traditionally does, more volatility is introduced into the economic system. The ship's list eventually gets to dangerous levels and drastic action needs to be taken. Magic puddings lose their buoyancy.'

And next you state: 'It is not the obligation of business to provide welfare for the nation's less fortunate. That is the role of government. Governments should shoulder that responsibility. If it involves raising taxes and paying a political price for doing so that is government's lot.'

OUB :

Idiocracy:

Tony Abbot has to be one of Australia's greatest politicians. He knows the average Australian better than any politician I have ever seen.

For example, his recent comments on the Syrian conflict

"It's not goodies versus baddies, it's baddies versus baddies"

Some have said this is an example of his lack of intelligence / fitness to be PM. But I beg to differ. He speaks to the average Australian in a manner unlike any other politician and it is working! He (Tony) even admitted to it saying "I think the odd use of colloquialism is perfectly appropriate if you are trying to explain to the public exactly what the situation is"

As scary as it might seem, Tony is dead right. The average Australian really does need this kind of simplicity.

In relation to my comment in the context of the article is what choice does Tony have if he wants to win government? If he didn't make the odd contradictory statement, he wouldn't win.

Stupid? Yes. Necessary when dealing with the Australian public? Absolutely.

Rob:

jusme:

04 Sep 2013 7:51:13pm

offshoring of jobs is a big problem in my opinion. not just for the Australian workers shafted of a job, but all wages go overseas to be spent in other economies. plus customers hate the extra effort required to deal with the company in question.

I liked labors idea of making sure business looked for Australians to fill positions b4 importing 457 workers. perhaps under the same principle companies should make sure there's no Australian workers that can do jobs before they're offshored. this would cut it out almost entirely because Australian workers WERE doing said jobs 5 minutes ago.

the coalition, being the party of bigger and bigger profits for business would never think about this. labor might but would be scared off with the threat of an ad campaign against them, the greens would but nobody like inconvenient truths.

Michael:

05 Sep 2013 10:25:03am

Offshoring is a big problem and you like Labors idea of making companies employ Australians. Yes it is a pity the Labor party didn't follow their own rhetoric instead of using 457 visas to employ non Australians. A bit hard to complain about others doing something you have.

JeremyB:

04 Sep 2013 8:09:56pm

There's an awful lot of political posturing here, and some employers busy undermining their own arguments, but not a lot of engagement with the central argument. Yes the Labor government needs to be held accountable for the deterioration in job security under it's watch, but under Abbott it will get worse.

Employers, profitable and less profitable have clearly moved to increasing casual employment. Most start casual, there's a proliferation of labour hire, and many employers will keep people casual for years. What is Tony Abbott going to do to reverse the trend to casual employment, and to increase job security?

If he makes it worse, the consequences for us all are horrendous. A generation that doesn't know a full time job, increasing economic insecurity, and a declining economy as casual, under employed and an insecure workers don't have the money to buy houses, provide for their families, or purchase life's necessities.

Michael:

04 Sep 2013 9:01:53pm

Perhaps someone could ask employers why they are increasingly employing casuals. At the same time employers could also be asked why they are increasingly using labour hire companies. Could it be that it is easier to get rid of a casual or someone employed through a labour hire company than an actual employee if they start playing up in the workplace, cause trouble or don't do they job correctly. Ask many in small business and they will tell you the worst thing that they ever did was to employ someone, some small businesses don't want to get bigger because of their fear of employing staff. It only takes one person to cause trouble in the workplace and it should be easy to get rid of them not harder. Of course many seem to have the attitude in Australia when they get a job that they have just turned up on the employers doorstep to take that they did nothing to create or take any risk that they own that job, it is theirs for life and it doesn't matter if they do their job properly or not.

Vicenta:

04 Sep 2013 11:05:21pm

All I know, the Liberal Party has a history of good governance. They are good in pursuing economic prosperity. They have a good Team relationship. They are well-organized and believe me they are committed to serve Australia.

Miowarra:

05 Sep 2013 8:26:18am

Somehow, Vicenta, I don'r see that taking the country into three overseas wars, VietNam, Iraq and Afghanistan, two of which were definitely illegal, buying a set of secondhand 1960s vintage Sea Sprite helicopters for top dollar, that STILL cannot fly is in ANY way "good governance".

Stirrer:

'Australians should be like Americans and agree to work harder,longer for less " Peter Reith"

"The US Federal Reserve is planning for a structural pool of unemployed to keep wages and costs down" Alan Kohler

"Australia should become a tax haven- labour should be free to move around the world as capital is" Judith Novak-IPA

Labor or Liberal- two sides of the same coin-both prisoners to neo liberal economics and the power of big money.

Witness the surrender to the Mining Industry over the original proposed mining tax-witness the power of News Ltd- it had the commercial TV stations refuse to air a Get UP advertisment critical of Rupert Murdoch.

Welcome to the world of neo liberalism= the revolution is over-it has won- BUT- it has sowed the seeds of its own destruction- in his greed and haste for profit it has made debt slaves of the very people who would be its customers.

There was a time when I thought that would not matter to neo libs-they will find new customers in the growing middle classes of Asia -they will not need us- but Asia itself (China and Japan) has a debt problem.The mother of all battles is about to begin, A battle between the old guard- big oil- big corporations- big finance- compliant Governments and the ME MEs on the one side and the new economics (third industrial revolution) - new social structures and reformist Governments on the other.

ru4real:

Tony Abbott and the LNP have a highly organised PR 'spin-team' whose job is to whitewash their 'real solutions' and intentions, and re-present all policies in more desirable packaging.

Their market research would show that 'job security' is a major concern to much of the electorate.

Even though Tony Abbott says that Fair Work will be retained, their proposed changes to the legislation, particularly the 'individual 'flexibility agreements' will bring the worst aspects of WorkChoices in through the back door.

Under Tony Abbott, unions, wages and conditions would be under attack, and it's worth considering what's happening in the UK, as reported on Late Night Live this week.

'Zero Hours Contract is the colloquial term for an employment contract under which the employee is not guaranteed work and is paid only for work carried out. Unions in Britain want to ban them, the British Labor Party is putting political pressure on the Conservative government to bring in legislation. So is this the dark side of flexible labour markets or an inevitable consequence of technological change?' (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/zero-hours-contracts/4932348)

Gr8Ape:

Disraeli:

05 Sep 2013 12:34:43am

If you want to know about job security ... ask workers in Geelong's Ford factory. Ask timber workers in Tassie. Ask workers in the naval dockyards in Sydney.I was going to write 'ask the young workers that put in pink batts' ... but some of them are dead.

Labor Govts are great at subsidising jobs for union-strong enterprises ... until the cash runs out. Great at wasting taxes on things like new school learning areas ( when the school really needed a new science lab). Great at ripping out copper wires ( that would last another 50 years) for an NBN few want so that Telstra workers can be paid $200,000

Circular:

05 Sep 2013 6:02:26am

I wonder what the thousands of redundant workers in the Qld Public Service think about Liberal promises on jobs. I would feel very insecure as a worker involved in any of the programmes that Abbott is cutting. Lets not forget these programmes Hockey's identified support private investment and jobs. Does 'job security' not include them?

As for decreasing taxation on business I see the banks and large businesses pulling massive (record in some cases) profits while explaining the need to lay staff off.

Abbott doesn't care about outcomes after the election as he is a driven to claim the lodge. The last three years of absolute negativity displays that, even to the point of proposing obviously lesser policies than those enacted by the Government e.g. NBN, Still, I dare say he won't last long. His aggressive nature will see too many wars on too many fronts and he hasn't got the negotiation skills to prevent them from happening.

Circular:

05 Sep 2013 9:48:11am

You should read Jurgen Habermas, pre eminent sociologist who wrote that there is a disconnect in the spheres of first world society (social economic political moral etc) that is caused by a skewing of our language to give prevalence to the economic over the others. Kind of a reductionism but with enormous effects for civility. He wrote about this in 1987 - The Theory of Communicative Action. Not easy to read but the idea has been easy enough to see in the early 21st century. This is a long building process that is dependent on how we speak about things and the links we make. I'm not trying to be communist here (:)) but this is a result of a capitalistic interpretation of the world. Won't change till the system is corrupted and its players are dust. Sorry.

Peter Graham:

05 Sep 2013 6:25:38am

The casualization of work mainly applies to unskilled or semi skilled jobs. I worked in manufacturing for the last 20 years, there was no casual work there, the work was skilled, required at least 6 months training and very few people left except for retirement.You can't equate skilled and un-skilled work, skilled workers tend to turn up every day and do their job, I am not so sure the same applies to unskilled workers.look how many manufacturing jobs have gone under this apology for a government, no wonder workers are turning to the LNP.

Circular:

05 Sep 2013 9:51:54am

You know I saw the beginnings of the demise of manufacturing under the Nationals in Qld. I was a fitter and turner working at a heavy engineering firm that alas no no longer exists. Liberals were in federally too. No sign of a labor gov't so I think your outcome is faulty.

Paulh:

05 Sep 2013 6:52:28am

What a marvellous record, Fair Work Australia what a fantastic success ,what an employment producing job protecting system it worked out to be. We have more unemployed than before it came into exsistence, we have had a record number of disputes and industrial actions, the costs to business have resulted in thousands of business going broke. The excessive wage claims and demands have resulted in companies like ford leaving and holders close to going. The costs to set up and run a mining company have escalated to become possibly the highest in the world, our ports are choked with delays and union demands, but for some reason its Abbotts fault ??? The answer is somewhere down the middle, somewhere away from union extremes and Alledged work choices is the answer,but its certainly NOT going to be helped by a demanding extreme union movement, especially a movement whose numbers are dropping, a union movement with union heads on massive salaries and perks a union movement still to clean up its own corrupt mess a union movement that seems to think its about running the labor party and therefor the country when it should be working directly with employers for the employees NOT demanding and threatening.

R.Ambrose Raven:

05 Sep 2013 8:54:55am

NZ in 2011 had 58,000 young (16-25) unemployed. Some 40% of that group (22,000) were recently qualified tertiary graduates. Such gross underuse appears because: ? Technology has destroyed most graduate entry level jobs, IT and engineering excepted (where in Australia and Canada at least there is strong competition from Indian s457 sweatshop coolie labour). ? Young, newly qualified (i.e. Generation Y) individuals are perceived by many mid-level managers as being ?difficult to manage? having unrealistic expectations. ? hiring graduates is quite a laborious process with no proof of prior job performance or relevant reference checking available, given up to 800 applicants per vacancy. ? Tougher economic conditions. ? Companies seldom establish grad-programmes for finding compatible graduates.

Market forces have not and will not reliably and fairly match supply and demand of labour, minimum employment standards, or sustain quality training. That real unemployment in almost all countries is the highest since the Great Depression with minimal comment and no policy action simply demonstrates how business has taken over society. Thus we have ?hysteresis? - permanent economic and social damage that will not be repaired even if there is a full recovery.

Job security has fallen while the number of people unable to achieve a stable income has increased. Worse, the industries that traditionally provided upward mobility, such as car manufacturing, have been in structural decline. So there is a reason for the government?s financial assistance to it.

To overcome that problem requires a much more radical approach to the significance of work in our lives, to put greater emphasis on its social and cultural content (even if it costs more). In other words we need a work life balance that puts less emphasis on the ?work?.

R.Ambrose Raven:

05 Sep 2013 9:37:34am

NZ in 2011 had 58,000 young (16-25) unemployed. Some 40% of that group (22,000) were recently qualified tertiary graduates. Such gross underuse appears because: ? Technology has destroyed most graduate entry level jobs, IT and engineering excepted (where in Australia and Canada at least there is strong competition from Indian s457 sweatshop coolie labour). ? Young, newly qualified (i.e. Generation Y) individuals are perceived by many mid-level managers as being ?difficult to manage? having unrealistic expectations. ? hiring graduates is quite a laborious process with no proof of prior job performance or relevant reference checking available, given up to 800 applicants per vacancy. ? Tougher economic conditions. ? Companies seldom establish grad-programmes for finding compatible graduates.

Market forces have not and will not reliably and fairly match supply and demand of labour, minimum employment standards, or sustain quality training. That real unemployment in almost all countries is the highest since the Great Depression with minimal comment and no policy action simply demonstrates how business has taken over society. Thus we have ?hysteresis? - permanent economic and social damage that will not be repaired even if there is a full recovery.

Job security has fallen while the number of people unable to achieve a stable income has increased. Worse, the industries that traditionally provided upward mobility, such as car manufacturing, have been in structural decline. So there is a reason for the government?s financial assistance to it.

To overcome that problem requires a much more radical approach to the significance of work in our lives, to put greater emphasis on its social and cultural content (even if it costs more). In other words we need a work life balance that puts less emphasis on the ?work?.

Heretic:

05 Sep 2013 11:37:36am

Actually it's hard to see how either party can make any grand claims about providing job security. Output by Australia's manufacturing sector is the worst in the world, performing even far behind the defunct Greek economy's manufacturing output - see this chart at Macro Business: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/australian-manufacturing-worlds-worst/

With additional cuts to public service employment, what's left, really?

Jacob:

05 Sep 2013 11:39:21am

Abbott's mentor, BA Santamaria, would be disgusted (if he were still alive) with the actions of these companies and governments with increasing casualisation of their workforce. He would have opposed this (as much as he would have communism) as the ugly face of capitalism, and would have deplored governments failing to protect workers from such exploitation.

So, what happened to your values, Tony? Or don't they matter, as long as you win power?

Steve_C:

05 Sep 2013 11:53:08am

I find it difficult to believe the comments on here from my fellow Australians!!!

So many of them seem to be suffering from Alzheimer's!!

The loss of tenure in the workplace has been a decades old phenomenon!! Just goes to show how myopic and self-centered the vast majority of Aussies have become... Until it happens to them they couldn't give a rat's about what happens to their fellow Aussies!! They'd make our WWII vets proud - like NOT!!!!

Besides; it's plainly evident that regardless of whatever political party attains Government post the upcoming election, the 'business community' as represented by the various lobbyists who trawl the halls of power at Federal and State levels will still be the people who determine the policies and the philosophy behind the actualities of employment in this country.

The past Labor governments have gone out of their way to accommodate these lobbyists and the corporate interests they ultimately serve; because even the current Labor movement recognises the power of the "business community" and even more especially the "big Business Lobby".

The Reg:

burke:

05 Sep 2013 1:13:41pm

What Abbott says is simple and true. You need a growing economy to create jobs. You need to help the private sector in order to get growth. Labor always seems to be trying to obstruct the private sector eg the mining tax. Look at what they have just done to the car industry - crazy or what? I am comfortable in seeing more growth from the Libs than from Labor.

Steve Mount:

A conservative Australian political leader, sprouting forth on job security. Mercy, that must be one of the most hilarious things I have read for a long time.

Aaah.... now I get it.

As is the current vibe in the (global, de-regulated, free-market orb of) Australian motor vehicle manufacturing industry, you MIGHT, no guarantees mind you, MIGHT get to keep your job...IF you accept a wage cut.

That's what Abbott and Co are on about, keeping the everyday fluoro collar worker employed...at a lower wage, and it's what the Coalition, and its close mate the ACCI, have been banging on about with the endless, undefined waffle of 'more IR flexibility' : less pay for the same work, or more work for the same pay.

Heavens, it's almost socialist (Good grief and shudder). Employ more at a lower wage...well almost, excluding the ridiculous, non-means tested, upper-middle welfare parental leave scheme, and cuts to company tax rates. How convenient.

Why any nation-state leader would choose to lower the average living standard of its people is a mystery... unless we're talking of 'us and them', the elite versus the great mass of unwashed, those with fluoro and blue collars.